tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 24, 2012 8:00pm-1:00am EDT
ates will double unless congress acts. the fact of the matter is, that creates an instability about planning for what college to go to, what kind of budget a family can accommodate in terms of paying for student loan debt and that's why. we can do better than that as a congress. we can do better than that as a nation. again, we're glad to see that mr. romney final came around even though he sent out signals in operation to this type of approach by sporting the ryan budget which locks in the 6.7% interest rate but this issue is too important to get sort of sucked into partisanship here. it is time to move forward, just like we did in 2007 when 77 republicans voted in favor of the college cost reduction act, 35 republican senators supported it, president george bush signed it into law a program named after republican senator robert stafford from vermont. i mean, come on, people are sick and tired of the fact that every single issue, whether
it's a highway bill a payroll tax cut extension or education assistance for middle class families gets sucked into, just, you know, partisan, you know, maelstrom in washington, d.c. and the fact of the matter is, there's 146 members on our side that have co-sponsored h.r. 3826 that are looking for a signal from the republican majority to say, you know what, it's time to look at our history, it's time to look at the genealogy of the stafford student loan program and the great bipartisan support to cut those rates five years ago, let's come up with a solution, let's move, let's help those families whose students are being accepted into college and those financial aid offices trying to help families budget and plan for the nt school year. . 67 days isn't enough, but we shouldn't compound it by letting a totally unacceptable increase for stafford loans go into
effect. i look forward working with you to make sure that doesn't happen. thank you for joining me here. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, is recognized as the speaker of the majority leader. mr. pearce: we, in the west have been working for two years now, for a year and a half, to help the obama administration with their task. in september of last year, september 11, president obama said he would keep trying every new idea that works and listen to every good proposal, no matter which party comes up with it. and so four days later on the
12th of september last year, we in the western caucus, sent a letter to president obama outlining the jobs frontier report, but to date, we haven't heard from the administration. in that jobs report, we bavekly have 40 different pieces of legislation that create americans jobs, utilize american energy and also stop regulations that are in the process of killing during this year, three million more jobs. at a time when the nation is faced with 8.2% unemployment, continuing over 8% month after month for one of the longest periods of time in our history, the administration seems pretty flat-footed on ideas. we in the western caucus felt we could assist in that. that's our business. many of us are familiar with the industries and familiar with the job creation that can go on in
the western states. and so we felt like we were offering help to the administration. but to this point, they have been completely unresponsive. if you go on our web site, you would be able to see the jobs frontier report and we have the cover here and it describes the 40 pieces of legislation that have been written and submitted in order to create these jobs of the now, it would be important to understand that all of these jobs, not one of them requires federal input. no fed ex pen difficult tur, no federal stimulus, no tax to the american people and we are trying to solve the problem with the free market that has caused this country to be so great in the past. we are faced with unemployment in the west that is actually much higher, 10.1% in the west, which tells us that the
accusations that there is a war on the west, war on jobs in the west by the administration are verifyable in the unemployment figures. we have other documentation, gas prices have doubled since 2009. the public lands are facing increasing restrictions. the president has recently stated that the oil production is up in the u.s. well, he stated a correct thing. but what he should have been from his perspective, talking about is oil produced on public land. and when we analyze that, we find out in 2011, that oil on -- produced on public lands decreased by 14% and that the gas production, natural gas production, decreased by 11%. a so when secretary salazar
levees his charge that the facts don't speak for what our position is, maybe we could redirect the secretary to go to the web pages for the government that would describe exactly what we're showing here, that the oil production that is occurring to increase our total production is occurring on private land. it is not occurring and in fact, decreasing on public land. that's because the government is slowing down the permitting process. they are finding new and restrictive ways to implement -- implement requirements on people who would be creating jobs, who would be drilling for oil. and each of these processes simply strings out investment. we had testimony earlier today, the house and senate western caucus came together and had testimony from two different panels and one of the panelists
explained they had paid for these leases on public land, but they, in fact, were turned back, because the requirements turned it into a proposition that they had not bid on at all. we continue to find these case examples of too much interference, too much regulation causing the energy sector to slow down in certain areas on public lands. therefore, creating more unemployment and creating a bigger gap. i'll finish one thought and i'll yield time to my friend, congresswoman loom is from wyoming, who is a -- lummis fl wyoming and is in the western caucus. we were in the hearing earlier today. but this time in our nation's history, almost everyone agrees that the greatest threat we face is the continuing debt in the year-after-year deficits.
there are three ways you can solve deficits. if you are spending more money than you are bringing in, as a family, you have a couple of choices. number one, you can go out and get a second job and increase your income. number two, you can cut your expenses down, or number three, you can borrow money to make up the differences. the federal government is faced with the same conclusions that it either needs to increase revenue. that's by raising taxes, or you could increase revenue by growing the economy. that's creating more jobs. secondly, you could cut spending. thirdly, you could borrow. unfortunately, the federal government goes one extra step that most families, some families resort to but it's against the law for families, but the fourth is to print money. and it's that printing of money,
that debt which is not being able to be repaid is a great threat to the country. if we were to look and see where we choked off jobs and put people back to work in the hundreds of thousands of jobs, then each job would do two things. they would cut the cost of government, and secondly, they would go to work and start paying taxes. you have a squeeze from the cost in, because the government is spending less money and you have an increase in revenues. so your cost and revenue move together when we create jobs. that's the reason that the western caucus is concentrated on jobs rather than a taxation policy or borrowing policy and not on the printing of money policy. i yield time to my good friend, representative lummis from wyoming. and i welcome you. loom loom i appreciate your --
mrs. lummis: i appreciate you yielding. members from states have similar problems and happen to be east of the mississippi, such as the southern states along the gulf of mexico, that have enormous energy reserves and face some of the same regulatory burdens and also people from coal-producing states that are east of the mississippi, such as west virginia, where a heavy attack on coal has jeopardized jobs and the future of coal in this country. as a contributor to our energy future. as we see from the charts next to me and from what congressman pearce has previously told us, even though energy production is up, oil and gas production is up on private land, this is the bar on my far right, to the left, it
shows that energy production, oil and gas production from federal lands has declined. 11% in the case of oil and 6% in the case of natural gas. now why is this affecting gas prices? why does president obama say that drilling more now on federal land will not affect oil prices? nor will it affect the price at the pump? there are two ways to look at it that. he is correct it's not going to affect the price of gasoline today or tomorrow, but the fact that we're not drilling now and the permits are not being issued now -- we know of 22 projects for the proposed 44,000 new oil and gas on private lands that are being held up, that's going to be gas production and oil production that will be available in the future,
anywhere from three to seven years. but because of these regulatory burdens, is not going to be produced. and that not only drives up the price of gasoline and power of all times, energy of all kinds in those future years long after president obama is out of office, but it does affect today's futures market because the people who are looking at the price of gasoline are looking at whether production is continuing to go up in this country. and that is a factor that is considered when futures pricing occurs. and because it's very obvious that the government policy in the united states for the last four years has been away from oil, gas and coal, and in favor only of solar and wind energy
because we subsidize it so heavily and promote it so heavily at the united states department of energy. it does affect the price of oil, gasoline and eventually gasoline at the pump. now, another factor related to the coal issue that i mentioned is, are we going to hurt our environment if we don't quit using coal? and the answer is, to look at our regulatory work that was done prior to president obama taking office and it's represented on this chart. let's look from 1970, the population of the united states is up 48% since then. coal fuel electricity up 184% since then. the gross domestic product to the united states, up 200 since
the 1970's, in part because we had affordable, reliable and abundant electricity. and so much of what we've done in this country in producing job growth is based on the fact that we have been able to rely on affordable, abundant electricity. and half of that has come from coal. now, in that same time period, emissions from power plants have declined 60%. look at all this growth. look at even the growth in coal-fueled electricity and the decline in emissions, down 60%. and that's due to the clean air act and compliance with the clean air act. the point here being, regulations can be valuable when done properly.
and the clean air act was a regulation that had the desire to impact. it dropped emissions 60% by 2008. the problem has been since 2008. the efforts to overregulate have stifled our ability to create more energy from coal. it has reduced the number of jobs from coal. it has reduced revenue from coal. and it has reduced the affordability of electricity going into the future. mr. chairman, i have some other points that i want to make about this, but for now, i would just like to point out that the people who are bearing the brunt of our policies on energy in this country for the last four years have been people of very modest income, because when gasoline prices go up at the
pump, when your electric bill goes up, it is the people who are in the lower middle class population or in a category of workers who make very little money and struggle to make ends meet, especially single mothers, who are bearing the brunt of these policies and these policies are choices of this administration. . they are conscious decisions that they are willing to see price go up for coal, oil, gas, -- coal, oil, gas general rated power to make them more competitive with higher cost, higher priced wind and solar energy. these are bad policies. for the average, everyday american. these are bad policies for america's working mothers. mr. chairman, thank you for this opportunity and i yield back.
>> i thank the gentlelady from wyoming for her presentation and the fact she is presents. one of the things people constantly say who are opposed to oil and gas coming from america, it is impossible to drill and remain environmentally sensitive and safe. mr. pearce: i think that those people are simply not looking at the current technology. it is possible with today's technology to drill up to seven miles horsontally. that would be like drilling from here in this -- horsontally, like from drilling from here in this room, across the potomac river, to crystal city putting a drill bit into a window that's maybe this large. we're able to drill down 3,000 or 4,000 feet, maybe 5,000 feet, turn horsontally and turn and hit the zones of
production. it's possible to preserve almost the entire footprint of the -- whether we're wanting grasslands or forest lands or whatever, we almost don't have to disturb those pause the drill bit will be so far beneath the surface. we don't have to go in and clear locations like we did 15, 20, 30 years ago. you can also take one well, drill it straight down and then come off of that and put multiple well bores so that what used to be spread on quarter acre, or quarter mile spacing or half mile spacing might now today be one well for any number of the distributed wells and so the environmental impacts of drilling today are probably less than in any other technology. wind energy, for instance, wind is a very large -- wind is very large in new mexico. they've got miles and miles of wind generators standing in the
air, very large footprint. new mexico is very capable of producing a lot of wind but one of the problems is that the wind doesn't always blow in the -- and the sun doesn't shine all the time. so those technology pross deucing, we had in arizona, recently, one of the operators of a wind farm said they get about 12.5% reliability, about 12 1/2% of the time they're getting power out of the wind. it's high for the arizona for solar, 25% of the time. when people are talking about converting from oil and gas to wind and solar and i think every one of us believe we ought to be using all those forms of energy but we have to understand that if we go to 12.5% reliability, that that's the only -- that's the amount of time that when you flip the switch that you're going to have power and i think most of us are living lives that we demand and need power
immediately for use of the home aflineses -- appliances, for use of our computers, manufacturing, you don't want power that's just available part time. manufacturing is expensive, competitive, we're trying to keep our manufacturing jobs here and the last thing we want to do is tell manufacturers, you've got to shut down for 10 hours a day because the wind is not blowing. so the modern economy absolutely demands the predictability of good power to flip the switch to turn on the equipment or turn on power in your home. it's possible to provide those energy resources at the same time that we protect the environment. much less destruction, my father's generation, there were lots of problems but my generation, i watched as major companies began to clean up things that had originated back in the 1920's and 1930's. it's necessary for taos say that every single one of us
wants to see the environment cleaned, they want clean water, they want the soil to be clean, clean air. it is possible to achieve both because of the technologies that we have today. so i would draw attention next to the fact that this administration has been saying that they want an all-of-the-above energy policy at the same time, then, they're increasing restrictions on public lands, access to public lands, making it more difficult for the producers, of both coal, electricity generation, they're making it so much more difficult that everyone in the west is struggling under the load. the reason that the west has to deal with the problem more than the east is that the western lands are so much more owned by the government. state government and federal government own such a large proportion of the land in the east, or in the west, that it's incomprehensible to states back east exactly about the problems
that we face. but whether it's endangered species, whether it is restrictions, whether it is e.p.a., all of the agencies play a part in slowing down the process, so recently our administration, through mr. ablee at the b.l.m., said that -- mr. abbey at the b.l.m. said we want the b.l.m. across the nation to lower the time required to give permits. in fact, that time is still abysmally high at over 200 days. i see my friend, mr. bishop, from utah, standing ready to speak at this time. if he is ready, we'll yield time to mr. bishop and we appreciate your presence on the western caucus, mr. bishop is the past chairman and still the respected person on the house western caucus.
thank you for being here tonight and we appreciate your participation on the caucus. mr. bishop: i appreciate the gentleman's introduction which is far more fluent than my presentation will be. i appreciate what the gentleman from new mexico and the gentlewoman from wyoming has said on this particular issue that we in the west seem to have a unique situation in which there is an effort to try and stifrle, hopefully by simply incompetence and not out of planning, but stifle the economic growth we need so desperately in the west for our kids and for our future. there are two things that were said today, i read in the paper that comes from this administration which tells us we are obviously in a campaign season and that the words simply are being used in a unique and different way. president once said that the party of which i belong is currently engaged in a war on the poor. which i find unique because to
be honest, when you have overriding and ever-increasing energy costs, that, as the gentlelady from wyoming said, that is the real war on the poor. somebody who is in the bottom portion of our economic sphere, our economic status, will pay three times as high a percentage of their income for increased energy prices as those in the top will. so if you have a nice urban job, you may have an inconvenience as energy prices go up but if you're one of those struggling working families, trying to make ends meet, this becomes a unique situation. when gas prices go up from $4 or more, climbing toward $5, they may dip down again but they will certainly rise one more time, it hurts the poor far worse than it does any other sector of our country. they are the ones who have the least likely chance of actually having some kind of fuel efficient automobile.
and yet they probably have the greatest chance of needing, desperately, that car simply to go to war -- to go to work and have have no other options whatsoever. they will have the most difficult times trying to heat their homes in the middle of wint we are increased costs of fuel going up. they are the ones who will recognize first of all that whenever the cost of gasoline goes up, the cost of food will also go up. simply because it takes money to send that food to market so you can buy it. all of that hits those who are in the lowest sector of our economy harder than those in the up -- upper sector of our economy. it's one of those things we said a few years ago, for every amount more they have to pay, that equates to 6,000 jobs
lost. the sad part is we don't have to do it. this is not an energy poor country. it is an energy rich country. we should be using the resources that we have here in the country to enrich ourselves and to help each other to have a better lifestyle. not going worse. and it's going to get -- the competition for energy is going to increase as time goes on. there are 6.5 billion people in the world. two billion of those 6.5 billion have no electricity today. they're going to want that in the future. which mean ours energy needs will be increasing, not decreasing. it doesn't matter what kind of effort you put in, they'll be increasing. we have to plan for that. i had a good friend who is one of the c.e.o.'s of the energy companies today who said when he was in college back in 1973, the word went out that we were in an energy crisis. we were running out of oil. we had to come up with a way of solving that problem. this is pre-- this is still the
shah's era. so we did. in 1977 we came up with a national energy plan. it was a colossal failure. it was an effort to do centralized planning here in washington to come up with a way of solving our problem in the future and it failed and it failed miserably. and now 30 years later, we have people in the bureaucracies of this administration who want to try and reinvent a very bad wheel that didn't work back in the 1970's. someone has to tell this administration and this city that back in 1988, the berlin wall fell down and the idea of centralized plans was discredited throughout the entire world. not only in government but also in industry. everyone learned that lesson except the bureaucracies here in washington where a solution of this administration and far too much that takes place in this city is still the same idea of let's get a big government plan and let the government control everything.
we want energy security but we don't want to drill anywhere. we don't like $4 a gallon gasoline prices but we're not ready to increase refineries anywhere. we don't necessarily want more coal or hide row or nuclear but we're not willing to come up with any alternative. we don't necessarily want to -- we do want more gas coming in but we're not ready to put pipelines in place to make sure that happens. the end result is, we lose. the western energy alliance made the prediction that because of our lack of energy development on public lands in the west, we have lost 16,000 jobs and almost $4 billion of infrastructure investment that comes in there secretary of the interior made a speech today where he called a lot of things we talk about here in congress the imagined energy world. i think this administration believes in that imagined energy world. it's very easy for this
administration to list all their alternative energy projects by name because they have very few of them. they're not moving ahead with solar power, they're not moving ahead with wind power, they're not moving ahead with anything else, they're not moving ahead with alternative forms either. this hits us in the west specifically. now, mr. pearce, i don't want to consume too much time you may want to go another direction but i'm an old schoolteacher so this is one of the areas that has concern to me. this map is obviously the united states, everything in red is what is controlled by the federal government. you notice that we in the west have the unique opportunity of having one-half of everything in the west controlled by the federal government. federal government controls one out of every three acres in the nation and in some of our states it's like 90%, 70%, 60% of all the land is still controlled by the nation. now, one of the things that you may say is, well, is that bad?
i want to contend to some of my good friends who live in other parts of the nation that they have an interest in all this red stuff over there because they are shelling out mitigating circumstance good friends who live in the east are shelling out $8 billion to $9 billion a year to control the west, to pay for all this land. every year in their efforts to make sure this map stays the same. , that's $8 billion to $9 billion that comes out of their pockets. what do they get for that investment? they get this map. the states that are in red are the states that have the hardest time funding their education systems. over the last several decades. now notice once gep, the states in red, the area in red is the federal government's own land, the states in red -- you notice there's a correlation between the two? this is what the united states is getting for its $9 billion invest optometrist control the west, we are harming our schools. .
now, even this land in the west, we have a huge backlog, our park service is behind in their maintainance systems. some states like mine are saying this is ridiculous. we can't generate the money we need for our own infrastructure and let us take control of the land and we will save those areas that need to be saved and access to areas and we will develop those resources. the secretary of interior said that concept defies common sense. the idea that only the federal government has the ability and intelligence to control this land and it defies common sense. the federal government that wants to spend more money for land acquisition, that cannot maintain its own land right now and harms kids in the west with
their education funding and harms all the education projects and simply wants more and more, that's the common sense? if that is the future, we have a long way to go. we have a simple solution. we can do it as well if not better. we can do it better. our kids are being harmed by this system. we are not producing jobs for our kids because of this system. and what i think we need to do in the west is realize this is a country that has energy potential, energy ability and we have kids that definitely need -- we in the west pay more taxes in the west than the east. we pay more in education. we have higher class sizes and we have more kids than those in the east. we have the ability to meet our particular needs and part of
that is for this administration is to simply realize you have to help develop the resources that we have. we can control it, fund it and do it if you give us the opportunity just to move forward. this administration says that we are producing more oil than ever before, because it's all being produced on private property where they can't control it. try as they might to. if they similar apply -- simply unleash the area, this country would move in a growth spurt that is almost impossible to imagine. that is the commonsense plan. they are happy to be part of this issue and i'm excited what my colleagues are saying in a much more refined area and i would like to hear from our westerners there is a war on western jobs and needs to stop. we need to help in creating western jobs, not hippeder
western jobs. mr. pearce: i thank the jab for his comments and would acksentue ate both his points about the administration's current war on the poor. every time -- and we have heard repeated comments from the administration and their representatives that we need to get the price of gasoline up so people will consume less. yes, the price of electricity by our policies will necessarily increase necessarily. the price of electricity and price of gas increasing punish the poor ter apply. why would we have policies that are so unfair to the poor, it defies imagination. following up with my friend's comments about the secretary saying that it is impossible, just not feasible, even
unimaginable that people in the states would take better care of the property than the federal government has, i would simply direct the secretary of the interior to the massive forest fires in the west. they are managing our foffers in order that they would burn down. they, and the federal government have choked the bureaucracy full of people in order to manage these resources, but, instead, they manage them in a process that ultimately sees they will burn down. it's not a question of if but when. the final comment i will make and i will yield time to my friend from colorado, the president asked for $52 million to crack down on speculators which he claims is the cause of high gas prices. $512 million to crack down on -- $52 million to crack down on speculators.
right now, they see a government that is choking down access to supplies, so they say we think the price is going to go up and they speculate and buy on the assumption that the price of gas is going up, the price of oil is going up and lo and be hold they are making money. if the president were to announce today that he were going to open and people believe him he would open federal lands, speculators would say, i better buy down because if i bid up and the price falls, i'm going to lose money. speculators would drive the price down. does president need $5 million. all he needs is to give one sentence from the white house is the war on the west is ending and open up oil production again. that would do the trick, not $52
million putting us further into debt. that makes sense to us. we are joined by doug lamborn from colorado. nice to see you and appreciate your participation in the western caucus. mr. lamborn: you do a great job representing new mexico and know so much about energy issues and financial institutions, but this is a great forum and thank you for organizing this and your leadership on energy issues. and i want to quickly address an issue that is of great concern to many people and myself included and that is who should be regulating things like fracking here in the united states. we have 10 different federal agencies that have their hand involved one way or another in
regulating fracking or at least trying to do so from the e.p.a. all the way to the securities and exchange commission, if you can believe that. and i'm concerned because of my work on the natural resources committee along with rob bishop that you heard from earlier, we have been hearing that the bureau of land management, one of the agencies that our committee oversees, is proposing rules regulating fracking on public lands. and the concern about that is that right now, in a state like colorado, my own state, those state regulators are already doing a great job regulating fracking. they know the local geology, they know the water al qaeda which fers and -- water aquifers. and if you add a bureaucracy,
you have the potential, in fact, the certainty of crippling energy production, because you'll have twice as many regulations to have to deal with if you are an energy producer. why in the world do we need to take -- when the states are already doing a good job, adding another layer of red tape and bureaucracy. i'm concerned about that. i'm the chairman on the subcommittee of energy and mineral resources is having a hearing in denver next week on tuesday -- wednesday, 2nd of may at the state capital and we will get into this very issue, should the states be regulating fracking or do we want the federal government regulating as well. and i hope the evidence shows that the states are already doing a great job. we only have -- we can only lose
by having another layer of regulation. congressman pearce, this is an energy that effects energy in the west and i'm concerned that we have federal agencies getting involved when the states are already doing a fine job and it's only going to hurt the production of energy and jobs. peace peace one thing that is often omitted by the opponents of fracking is that the people who most want fracking not to communicate with the fresh water or oil companies themselves. they drill this million dollar oil bo rmp e and put cementous of a casing in order to have a nice, tight well bo rmp e in order to produce the oil. when they frack, they frack thousands of feet below the
water zones. they are usually right up at the surface and for contamination to occur, that pressure that is pumped down lower in the well, would have to come outside the well bore and then contaminate the water up there and they have ruined the entire well bore and they are watching to see if there is any drop in pressure and that's when you know you have something bleeding off. they shut everything down and patiently look at it and the oil companies are the best cuss towedians of the water because they don't want to ruin the wells they spent drilling and a lot of money incompleting. i notice that my good friend, ms. lummis is back to the podium and would yield more time to her. mrs. lummis: i would like to
point out in relation to our federal budget what states are experiencing, so let's start with the federal budget. here we have all of our revenue for 2011 in this column. here we have just our entitlement programs that we spend money on in this column. so we're spending all of the tax revenue we take in in this country just on entitlement programs, social security, medicare, medicaid, other mandatory programs, food stamps and school lunches and then interest on the debt, which means every other discretionary program and the global war on terror and our national defense is all borrowed money, borrowed from china, from saudi arabia, from japan and from american companies and the american people. that would never happen in a
state. on the front page of my statewide paper, that our governor is asking all state agencies to budget for an 8% cut in spending and the health department, a 4% cut in spending. and this is because natural gas prices in the united states have dropped below $2 per m.c.f., which is extremely low and my state is the second largest producer of natural gas in the united states and we are heavily relent on natural gas. what happens when revenues decline? we don't hire people to replace to sit in vacant positions. we leave those positions vacant or better yet, make them completely go away. that's what states do to manage their problems. but an interesting source of
revenue for the states is income off state lands and it's a very important source of revenue. now, mr. bishop from utah, pointed out earlier this evening that the american taxpayers are paying $8 billion, mr. bishop, to pay for administering public lands in the west. in my state of wyoming, we could be managing those lands. and if you went and looked at the quality of our state lands, you would be thoroughly impressed. they are beautifully managed. the stewardship is well done. we are producing oil and gas. we are producing livestock, cattle and sheep. we are producing timber. we are producing recreational opportunities, open space. we are producing, because of all
that open space places where clean air, clean water and clean living can really work together. it is a wonderful system with much smaller administrative costs than the american people are paying for the federal lands in the west. . . we have proven as state who was received land when we became states that we can manage all of the land in our state that's not private land. consequently, i agree with what mr. bishop said earlier, the fact that we have nepa, flpma, and lots of other laws that are managed from the federal government's level that could be managed at the state level
would make it much less expensive, would make the land stewardship closer to home, where where the people who really love and thrive on these important lands live and work and want to recreate and want to participate in the management of the lands. they would also produce more revenue for the states, making states like utah, like my own state of wyoming, where we prioritize education, public education, above all other expenditures of government, we would make more money available because as you know, in most states, the property taxes go largely to the education system. well, when the land belongs to the federal government, the federal government doesn't pay taxes. consequently, that money is not available to us. now, states do get something
called pilt payment, payments in lieu of taxes, but there's not the same as if that land were on the tax rolls of the states in which those lands reside. consequently, look at what we've summed up. we're producing less jobs off federal lands with more regulations, more cost to the american taxpayer, less revenue to the states, less revenue to the federal government, and lost potential for job creation. the job seekers end up being on unemployment instead of paying taxes because of the salaries that are paid and when you have great paying jobs like in the oil and gas industry, where the average job pays $72,000 a year, a much higher wage than
the average wage in our states, we really are hurting ourselves terribly by not prioritizing jobs, not using federal lands to their fullest capabilities in a way that provides great stewardship to those of us in the -- that those of us in the west value and seek and yearn for and want and would never compromise. -- would never compromise in order to have a robust state and a robust economy. i want to thank mr. pearce once again for his leadership and i yield back. mr. pearce: i thank the gentlelady. before i yield time to my good friend mr. bishop again, i'm reading in today's quotes, that interior secretary salazar said that house republicans live in an imagined energy world but i appreciate his concern and his criticism, i consider it as
constructive, but think about this imagination. the president in march of 2012 said we can't just drill our way to lower gas prices. we can't drill our way to lower gas prices. that's a viewpoint that could be considered legitimate, except that about the same time he's calling for brazil and saudi arabia to increase their drilling in order to get the prices down so that people in america don't have to pay as much as the -- at the pump. i'm not sure what imagined energy world says that it will cause the price of gas to go down if they drill in asjha and brazil -- in saudi arabia and brazil but won't if we drill here. that argues to me that that's an imagined energy world. the secretary goes on to talk about these members of the republican party are members of the flat earth society, in a
demeaning term my county, you can see from one end to the other, miles and miles, and if you turn and look east, you can see to dallas 300 miles away, i do live in new mexico and can see across the line to texas, so he speaks in demeaning terms about flat earth yet he's happy to have the oil and gas production that comes from there. so the flat broke administration is criticizing the flat earth society and the two -- of the two, i would rather live on flat ground than be flat broke. so i would -- i would yield a couple of minutes to my good friend and then i'll close out. mr. bishop, thank you. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman from new mexico and i enjoy your image of the world
much better than this administration. you web the "back to the future," they had the two movies, what happened if he got the sport sheets and what happened if he didn't? there's two -- that's what's happening here, there are two visions of what america can be, and this administration is taking us down the way if biff does get the sport sheets and wins everything and controls everything. when we talk about what the federal government does on private lands, it's not only related to the private -- what they do on public lands is not just related to public lands itself. we find that this administration not -- is not satisfied with just living within the boundaries of public lands but is coming up with policies that impact private property next to public lands. there were seven leases that went through a seven-year review. they were ready to be left for
sale to try to develop the resors in the eastern part of my state, the very first thing this administration did was recall the 77 leases. didn't matter that the process had gone through. they had done the work, they recalled them for the purpose of special interest groups for their satisfaction. what happened in the eastern part of my state is the unemployment rate simply skyrocketed. not only for these 77 leases that were on public lands, but the private sector that was there, ready to invest, saw the handwriting on the wall and they pulled out of that particular area. they were not ready to go through the kind of ha razzment -- harassment and regulation that they saw taking place. only now has it started to grangulely come back. in here's the problem we have with this administration's policies. not donnell they inhibit energy production and jobs that can be generated on public lands, their efforts of increased regulation and efforts to inhibit that kind of development takes away jobs --
jobs on private property where they see that there is not a future there, they don't want to go to the regulatory hassle so what could have been developed in my state basically went to north dakota on private lands and there they found their ability to make lots of money and to increase the energy production here because they simply did not have to deal with this administration. and unfortunately, it's not just about energy jobs. this administration on public lands is doing the same thing for recreation jobs. with the number of roads that have been closed on both forest and b.l.m. lands, stopping the ability of people to hunt and fish and do other forms of recreation, even the kinds of regulation on outfitters that tells them what kind of coffee they have to serve when they're in park service property, that is an impediment to the development of our recreation community and recreation jobs at the same time. one of the things we have to realize is that this administration's effort to try
to control everything is producing nothing that is helping us create jobs for our kids to keep them at home and i appreciate mr. pearce for actually starting this process and talking about this issue because it needs desperately to be addressed. i yield back. mr. pearce: i thank the gentleman. the senate, senator hatch is going to introduce the west act a combined 10 bills we have previously sent from the house of representatives, they're sitting, dormant, drawing dust in the senate, so he's going to lump them together and push them out. those are part of our jobs frontier report and those jobs -- those acts do things like h.r. 1229, putting the gulf back to work act. that's by representative hastings. h.r. 1230, restarting america offshore leasing now act by again mr. hastings. h.r. 1231, reversing president opaw ma's offshore moratorium act, h.r. 2021, the jobs and
permitting act by mr. gard never of colorado, h r. 1337, the san joaquin valley water act by mr. nunes of california, h r. 872, reducing regulations -- regulatory burdens act by mr. gibbs, h.r. 1633, the farm dust prevention act by mrs. noem and finally h.r. 910, the energy tax prevention act by mr. upton. now, just talking among friends, i would feel that the secretary of interior exposes a little bit of thin skin. these are credible debates that we're having in america right now. whether we should use foreign oil or oil produced in this country. whether we should export our jobs overseas to produce energy or whether we should get them here. so i read where mr. salazar
says that the fact is most of the outer continental shelf resources are open for business, he says, then give us the nod and we'll simply pass those first three bills, putting the gulf back to work act, restarting america offshore leasing now, reversing president obama's offshore moratorium. if it's already the case, just humor us. nod your head. nothing will be changed since it's already open for business and just -- if this president would tell the senate to just go ahead and pass those three bills, we could send them up to the president have plenty of jobs starting now, plenty of american production. again, i would look back at the price of natural gas. when the administration says that you can't trill and come with lower prices, the price of natural gas a couple of years ago was in the $12 range. today the price is about $2.50. now what caused the price to go from $12 to $2? when the price is going up, the
president says, i need $52 million to control speculators driving the cost up. when the price goes down, somehow he's not say, we need to give you $52 million back because now the speculator are driving the cost down he doesn't -- this view of energy in the white house originating with the secretary of the interior, somehow doesn't get the fact that the reason price of natural gas has fallen from $12 to $2 is because we have drilled into lower prices. we have increased the supply enough through more jobs and more production that demand is swamped with the supply. it's an economic equation of supply and demand. i think that's the greater impact in the price of gasoline today. the supply and demand of oil. and the supply and demand of natural gas controls that. we have drilled our way to
success in natural gas because companies went everywhere drilling on private lands. but now then, the administration is say, we need to curtail all that production here because it's not going to lower the price, we need to control the speculators. these are simply inconsistencies that are punishing the american public. they're punishing the american public and especially the poor and the -- in the american public by higher gasoline prices, by higher electricity costs, it's making it to where families just can't get by, where they can't make the payments for the month and poor families everywhere are having to make choices to buy energy or to live in cold, live without air-conditioning, to not be able to drive and see their grandkids. what kind of choices are those? those are not the choices that i think most americans want. i think most americans like our
lifestyle. our lifestyle is based on two dominant things, the cost of food and the cost of energy and when we drive both of those costs up, through overregulation, through government limitations, then we're doing a disservice to the american public. every single person in america wants to see our land protected, to they want to see the workers protected, they want to see soil, walter and air protected but they also are desperate to see job crease ated. it's within the power of -- job crease ated. it's within the power of the body, within the power of the senate, it's within the power of the president to create those job, create the answers for an america that is tired, for an america that is scared, for an america that is worried about its future and the future for her children. it's within our power in this town to reverse those things,
to stop the war on the west, to start making sense in public policy, to start making decisions that create solutions , real solutions, for not just jobs but for careers where people can plan their lives, they can set aside to buy a house or to send their kids to school. that's the america that all americans -- that all americans want. across party lines, across racial line, people for generations have come to this country for that promise, for that hope, and that opportunity. it starts with us in this town, this time -- it is time for us to put aside the differences, mr. president, we ask for you to sign -- we ask the senate to pass the west act and mr. president, we respectfully ask for you to to the sign that act. bring jobs to the west, bring prosperity to the nation. god bless this country and god
bless each one of the taxpayers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to make their remarks to the chair. mr. pearce: mr. speaker. i move that we now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is now on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 tomorrow morning. for morning hour debate.
you can tell she will be an outstanding teacher. >> i love you, president obama. >> i love you back, i do. love north carolina. i love north carolina. i do. every time i come down to this state i just love it that much more. i said a while back, the thing about north carolina is even the folks who don't vote for me are nice to me. i can't say that about everyplace. now, i want to issue a quick spoiler alert, later today, i am getting together with jimmy fallon -- (applause) -- and the dave matthews band -- (applause) -- right here on campus.
we're going to tape jimmy's show for tonight -- so i want everybody to tune in, make sure it has high ratings. it's a dave matthews fan right here. we've got some wonderful people who are here who are doing a great job for you guys. first of all, your governor, bev perdue, is in the house. give her a big round of applause. there she is. we've got your congressman, dave price -- congressman david price. congressmen gk butterfield. congressman brad miller. your mayor, mark kleinschmidt. chancellor of unc, holden thorp.
>> four more years. four more years. >> it is great to be back on the lady tar heels' home court. this is an arena with some serious hoops history. i know the men's team used to play here back in the day. i just want to remind you right off the bat -- i picked unc to win it all in march madness. want to point out. and if kendall hadn't gotten hurt -- -- who knows where we might have been. i saw mcadoo, by the way, at the airport. he came by and said hello, which i was excited -- so i just want you to know i have faith in you guys.
now, it's always good to begin with some easy applause lines -- talk about the tar heels. but the reason i came to chapel hill today is to talk about what most of you do here every single day -- and that's study, i assume. higher education is the single most important investment you can make in your future. so i'm proud of all of you for doing what it takes to make that investment -- for the long hours in the library -- i hope -- -- in the lab, in the classroom. this has never been more important. whether you're here at a four- year college or university, or you're at a two-year community college, in today's economy, there's no greater predictor of
individual success than a good education. right now, the unemployment rate for americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average. the incomes of folks with a college degree are twice as high as those who don't have a high school diploma. a higher education is the clearest path into the middle class. now, i know that those of you who are about to graduate are wondering about what's in store for your future. not even four years ago, just as the global economy was about to enter into freefall, you were still trying to find your way around campus. and you've spent your years here at a time when the whole world
has been trying to recover, but has not yet fully recovered from the worst economic crisis since the great depression, the worst economic crisis in most of our lifetimes -- and that includes your teachers. our businesses have added more than 4 million jobs over the past two years, but we all know there's still too many americans out there looking for work or trying to find a job that pays enough to cover the bills and make the mortgage. we still have too many folks in the middle class that are searching for that security that started slipping away years before the recession hit. so we've still got a lot of work to do to rebuild this economy so that it lasts, so that it's solid, so that it's firm. but what i want you to know is that the degree you earn from unc will be the best tool you have to achieve that basic american promise -- the idea that if you work hard, you can do well enough to raise a family and own a home, send your own kids to college, put a little away for retirement. that american dream is within
your reach. and there's another part of this dream, which is the idea that each generation is going to know a little bit more opportunity than the last generation. that our kids -- i can tell you now as a parent -- and i guarantee you, your parents feel this about you -- nothing is more important than your kid's success. you want them to do better than you did. you want them to shoot higher, strive more, and succeed beyond your imagination. so keeping that promise alive is the defining issue of our time.
i don't want this to be a country where a shrinking number of americans are doing really, really well, but a growing number of people are just struggling to get by. that's not my idea of america. i don't want that future for you. i don't want that future for my daughters. i want this forever to be a country where everybody gets a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share, and everybody is playing by the same set of rules. that's the america i know and love. that's the america within our reach. i think back to my grandfather. he had a chance to go to college because this country decided every returning veteran
of world war ii should be able to afford it, should be able to go to college. my mother was able to raise two kids by herself because she was able to get grants and work her way through school. i am only standing here today, michelle is only who she is today -- (applause) -- because of scholarships and student loans. that gave us a shot at a great education. we didn't come from families of means, but we knew that if we worked hard we'd have a shot. this country has always made a commitment to put a good education within the reach of all who are willing to work for it. that's what makes us special. that's what made us an economic superpower. that's what kept us at the forefront of business and
science and technology and medicine. and that's a commitment we have to reaffirm today in 2012. [applause] now, everybody will give lip service to this. you'll hear a lot of folks say, yes, education is important -- it's important. but it requires not just words but deeds. and the fact is, that since most of you were born, tuition and fees at america's colleges have more than doubled. and that forces students like you to take out a lot more loans. there are fewer grants. you rack up more debt. can i get an "amen"? >> amen. >> now, the average student who borrows to pay for college now
graduates with about $25,000 in student loan debt. that's the average -- some are more. can i get an "amen" for that? >> amen. >> yes -- because some folks have more debt than that. >> amen. (laughter and applause. ) [applause] >> americans now owe more on their student loans than they do on their credit cards. and living with that kind of debt means that this generation is not getting off to the same start that previous generations -- because you're already loaded up with debt. so that means you've got to make pretty tough choices when you are first starting out. you might have to put off buying a house.
it might mean that you can't go after that great idea for a startup that you have, because you're still paying off loans. maybe you've got to wait longer to start a family, or save for retirement. when a big chunk of every paycheck goes towards loan debt, that's not just tough on you, that's not just tough for middle-class families, it's not just tough on your parents -- it's painful for the economy, because that money is not going to help businesses grow. i mean, think about the sooner you can start buying a house, that's good for the housing industry. the sooner you can start up that business, that means you're hiring some folks -- that grows the economy. and this is something michelle and i know about firsthand. i just wanted everybody here to understand this is not -- i didn't just read about this. i didn't just get some talking points about this.
i didn't just get a policy briefing on this. michelle and i, we've been in your shoes. like i said, we didn't come from wealthy families. so when we graduated from college and law school, we had a mountain of debt. when we married, we got poorer together. we added up our assets and there were no assets. and we added up our liabilities and there were a lot of liabilities, basically in the form of student loans. we paid more in student loans than we paid on our mortgage when we finally did buy a condo. for the first eight years of
our marriage, we were paying more in student loans than what we were paying for our mortgage. so we know what this is about. and we were lucky to land good jobs with a steady income. but we only finished paying off our student loans -- check this out, all right, i'm the president of the united states -- (applause) -- we only finished paying off our student loans about eight years ago. that wasn't that long ago. and that wasn't easy, especially because when we had malia and sasha, we're supposed to be saving up for their college educations, and we're still paying off our college educations.
so we have to make college more affordable for our young people. that's the bottom line. and like i said, look, not everybody is going to go to a four-year college or university. you may go to a community college. you may go to a technical school and get into the workforce. and then, it may turn out that after you've had kids and you're 35, you go back to school because you're retraining for something new. but no matter what it is, no matter what field you're in, you're going to have to engage in lifelong learning. that's the nature of the economy today. and we've got to make sure that's affordable. that's good for the country, it's good for you. at this make-or-break moment for the middle class, we've got to make sure that you're not saddled with debt before you even get started in life.
because i believe college isn't just one of the best investments you can make in your future -- it's one of the best investments america can make in our future. this is important for all of us. we can't price the middle class out of a college education. not at a time when most new jobs in america will require more than a high school diploma. whether it's at a four-year college or a two-year program, we can't make higher education a luxury. it's an economic imperative. every american family should be able to afford it. >> amen. >> so that's why i'm here. now, before i ask for your help -- i've got something very specific i'm going to need you to do. but, north carolina, indulge me. i want to briefly tell you what we've already done to help make college more affordable, because we've done a lot. before i took office, we had a student loan system where tens of billions of taxpayer dollars were going to banks, not students. they were processing student loan programs except the student
loans were federally guaranteed so they weren't taking any big risks, but they were still taking billions of dollars out of the system. so we changed it. some in washington fought tooth and nail to protect the status quo, where billions of dollars were going to banks instead of students. and they wanted to protect that. they wanted to keep those dollars flowing to the banks. one of them said -- and i'm going to quote here because it gives you a sense of the attitudes sometimes we're dealing with in washington. they said, it would be "an outrage" -- if we changed the system so that the money wasn't going through banks and they weren't making billions of dollars of profits off of it -- said it was "an outrage." and i said, no, the real outrage is letting these banks keep these subsidies without taking any risks while students are working two or three jobs just to get by.
that's an outrage. that's an outrage. so we kept at it, we kept it at -- we won that fight. today, that money is going where it should be going -- should have been going in the first place -- it's going directly to students. we're bypassing the middleman. that means we can raise pell grants to a higher level. more people are eligible. more young people are able to afford college because of what we did. over 10 years, that's going to be $60 billion that's going to students that wasn't going to students before. now, then, last fall, i acted to cap student loan payments faster, so that nearly 1. 6 million students who make their payments on time will only have to pay 10 percent of their monthly income towards loans once they graduate. now, this is useful -- this is especially helpful for young people who decide, like domonique, to become teachers, or maybe they go into one of the -- >> social work. >> -- social work or one of the helping professions. and they may not get paid a lot of money, but they've got a lot of debt. and so being able to cap how
much per month you're paying as a percentage of your income gives you a little bit more security knowing you can choose that profession. and then we wanted every student to have access to a simple factsheet on student loans and financial aid, so you can have all the information you need to make your own choices about how to pay for college. and we set up this new consumer watchdog called the consumer financial protection bureau -- (applause) -- and so they're now putting out this information. we call it "know before you owe." know before you owe. it's something michelle and i wish we had had when we were in your shoes -- because sometimes we got surprised by some of this debt that we were racking up.
so that's what we've done. but it's not enough just to increase student aid. we can't keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition or we'll run out of money. and colleges and universities, they've got to do their part also to keep college costs down. so i've told congress to steer federal aid to those schools that keep tuition affordable, that provide good value, that serve their students well. and we've put colleges on notice, if you can't stop tuition from just going up every single year a lot faster than inflation, then funding you get from taxpayers, at least at
the federal level, will go down -- because we need to push colleges to do better, and hold them accountable if they don't. now, public universities know well, and governor perdue knows well -- states also have to do their part by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. i know that bev is fighting hard to make tuition affordable for north carolina families. that's a priority for her. but last year, over 40 states cut their higher education spending. and these budget cuts have been among the largest factors in tuition increases at public colleges over the past decade. so we're challenging states to take responsibility. we told them, if you can find new ways to bring down the cost of college and make it easier for students to graduate, then we'll help you do it. but i want everybody here, as you're thinking about voting, make sure you know where your state representative and your state senator stands when it
comes to funding higher education. they've got to be responsible. they've got to be accountable as well to prioritize higher education. all right. so helping more families, helping more young people afford a higher education, offering incentives for states and colleges and universities to keep their costs down -- that's what we've been doing. now congress has to do their part. they need to extend the tuition tax credit that we put in place back when i came into office. it's saving middle-class families thousands of dollars. congress needs to safeguard aid for low-income students, like pell grants, so that today's freshmen and sophomores know that they'll be able to count on it.
that's what congress has to do. congress needs to give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work/study jobs over the next five years. that's what congress needs to do. and then there's one specific thing -- and now this is where you come in -- there's one specific thing that congress needs to do right now to prevent the interest rates on student loans, federal student loans, from shooting up and shaking you down. so this is where you come in. i want to explain this, so everybody listen carefully. five years ago, congress cut the rate on federal student loans in half. that was a good thing to do. but on july 1st -- that's a little over two months from now -- that rate cut expires. and if congress does nothing, the interest rates on those
loans will double overnight. so i'm assuming a lot of people here have federal student loans. the interest rates will double unless congress acts by july 1st. and just to give you some sense of perspective -- for each year that congress doesn't act, the average student with these loans will rack up an additional $1,000 in debt -- an extra thousand dollars. that's basically a tax hike for more than 7 million students across america -- more than 160,000 students here in north carolina alone. anybody here can afford to pay an extra $1,000 right now? >> no. >> i didn't think so. so stopping this from happening should be a no-brainer. helping more of our young people afford college, that should be at the forefront of america's
agenda. it shouldn't be a republican or a democratic issue. this is an american issue. the stafford loans we're talking about, they're named after a republican senator. the pell grants that have helped millions of americans earn a college education, that's named after a democratic senator. when congress cut those rates five years ago, 77 republicans in the house of representatives voted for it -- along with a couple hundred democrats -- -- including the democrats who are here. so this shouldn't be a partisan issue. and yet, the republicans who run congress right now have not
yet said whether or not they'll stop your rates from doubling. we're two months away. some have hinted that they'd only do it if we cut things like aid for low-income students instead. so the idea would be, well, all right, we'll keep interest rates low if we take away aid from other students who need it. that doesn't make sense. one republican congresswoman said just recently -- i'm going to quote this because i know you guys will think i'm making it up -- . >> we trust you. >> no, no, no. she said she had "very little tolerance for people who tell me they graduate with debt because there's no reason for that." >> booo --
>> i'm just quoting here. i'm just quoting. she said, students who rack up student loan debt are just sitting on their butts, having opportunity "dumped in your lap." >> booo -- >> i mean, i'm reading it here, so i didn't make this up. now, can you imagine saying something like that? those of you who have had to take out student loans, you didn't do it because you're lazy. you didn't do it lightly. you don't like debt. i mean, a lot of you, your parents are helping out, but it's tough on them. they're straining. and so you do it because the cost of college keeps going up and you know this is an investment in your future. so if these folks in washington were serious about making college more affordable, they
wouldn't have voted for a budget that could cut financial aid for tens of millions of college students by an average of more than $1,000. >> absolutely. >> they certainly wouldn't let your student loan rates double overnight. so when you ask them, well, why aren't you making this commitment? they say, well, we got to bring down the deficit. of course, this is the deficit they helped run up over the past decade. didn't pay for two wars. didn't pay for two massive tax cuts. and now this is the reason why you want students to pay more? they just voted to keep giving billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies that are raking in record profits. >> booo -- >> they just voted to let millionaires and billionaires keep paying lower tax rates than middle-class workers and their secretaries.
>> booo -- >> they even voted to give an average tax cut of at least $150,000 to folks like me, the wealthiest americans -- a tax cut paid for by cutting things like education and job training programs that give students new opportunities to work and succeed. now, that's their priorities. and that doesn't make any sense. do we want to keep tax cuts for the wealthiest americans who don't need them and didn't ask for them? or do we want to make sure that they're paying their fair share? do we want to keep subsidizing big oil, or do we want to make sure we're investing in clean energy? do we want to jack up interest rates on millions of students, or do we want to keep investing in things that will help us and
help them in the long-term -- things like education and science, and a strong military and care for our veterans? we can't do both. we can't have it both ways. we've got to make a choice about what our priorities are. you know, i've said this before, but i'm just going to keep on repeating it, in america, we admire success. we aspire to it. i want everybody to be rich. i want everybody to work and hustle and start businesses and study your tails off to get there. but america is not just about a few people doing well. america is about giving everybody a chance to do well. everybody -- not just a few -- everybody. that's what built this country. that's what the american dream is all about. a lot of us had parents or grandparents who said, maybe i
can't go to college, but some day my son, he'll go to college and i'll be so proud of him. a lot of us had parents or grandparents who said, maybe i can't start my own business, but maybe some day my daughter, she's going to start her own business, she's going to work for herself. a lot of us had parents or grandparents who said, i may be an immigrant, but i believe that this is a country where no matter what you look like and where you come from, no matter what your name is, you can make it if you try. north carolina, that's who we are. that's our values. that's what we're about. so, no, "set your sights lowe" -- that's not an education plan." you're on your own" -- that's not an economic plan.
we can't just cut our way to prosperity. previous generations made the investments necessary for us to succeed, to build a strong middle class, to create the foundation for america's leadership in science and technology and medicine and manufacturing. and now it's our turn. we've got to do the right thing. i want one of you to discover the cure for cancer, or the formula for fusion, or the next game-changing american industry. and that means we've got to support those efforts. so if you agree with me, i need your help. i need you to tell your member of congress, we're not going to set our sights lower. we're not going to settle for something less. now, all of you are lucky, you already have three congressmen who are on board. so don't -- you don't need to call them. they're already doing the right thing. but i'm asking everyone else who's watching or following online -- call your member of congress. email them.
write on their facebook page. tweet them -- we've got a hashtag. here's the hashtag for you to tweet them, #dontdoublemyrate. all right? i'm going to repeat that -- the hashtag is #dontdoublemyrate. you tweet -- everybody say it just so everybody remembers it. >> don't double my rate. >> don't double my rate -- it's pretty straightforward. your voice matters. so stand up. be heard. be counted. tell them now is not the time to double interest rates on your student loans. now is the time to double down on smart investments to build a
strong and secure middle class. now is the time to double down on building an america that lasts. >> absolutely. >> you -- absolutely. you and me, all of us here, every single one of us -- we're here only because somebody, somewhere, felt responsibility not just for themselves, but they felt responsibility for something larger. it started with them feeling responsible for their families. so your parents sacrificed, your grandparents sacrificed to make sure you could succeed. but then they thought bigger than that. they thought about their neighborhood, they thought about their community, they thought about their country. now -- >> the planet. >> they thought about the planet. and now it's our turn to be responsible. it's our turn to keep that promise alive. and no matter how tough these times have been, no matter how many obstacles that may stand in our way, i promise you, north carolina, there are better days ahead.
we will emerge stronger than we were before. because i believe in you. i believe in your future. i believe in the investment you're making right here at north carolina. that tells me that you share my faith in america's future. and that's what drives me every single day -- your hopes, your dreams. and i'm not quitting now because, in america, we don't quit. we get each other's backs. we help each other get ahead. and if we work together, we'll remind the world just why it is that america's the greatest nation on earth. thank you, everybody. god bless you. god bless america. ♪
postal service. we will be joined by leo pfeifer. >> rosie o'donnell was the president was the first choice to be here this evening. she withdrew citing a nasty and brittle confirmation process. i was not even the second choice. dennis miller was the second choice but he was hung out on an illegal nanny technicality.
>> i must say, i thought when you got into office he would put a swift and to your pickup basketball -- basketball planned. first black president playing basketball. one step forward, two steps back. are you any good it? i bet you think your game is really nice right now. >> this weekend c-span will offer live coverage of the event saturday night. c what other comedians have said at this dinner online at the video library.
>> the author of arizona's immigration law before a senate hearing today from capitol hill. russell per se and other state officials talk about the constitutionality of a lot. this hearing is two hours. >> good morning, everyone. the hearing will come to order. today's hearing we will be discussing the constitutionality and prudence of the many state and local immigration laws enacted. state legislators from across the country introduced 1607 bills and resolutions relating to immigration.
tomorrow the supreme court is quite to be considering whether the arizona law is constitutional. the court will be deciding if states can enact comprehensive immigration enforcement lost to promote the south -- laws to promote itself deportation and five states. they have crafted laws following arizona's example. court challenges have been filed against all five and the outcome will be dictated by the supreme court's decision in the supreme court case. the supreme court will base its decision upon what the senate had previously said about the role of state and local government in enforcing the law. the wisdom of the arizona law as
currently being debated around the country. it has been endorsed as a model for the country by mitt romney, the republican nominee for president. others have said they do not believe the law should be expanded nationwide. in my view, these laws are both counterproductive and unconstitutional in terms of being counterproductive, the statistics could not be clear with the economic data it causes. the convention and tourism industries lost as much as $140 million. the agriculture industry has seen much of their crops destroyed due to a lack of labor. in alabama a study by the university of alabama found loss projected to shrink the economy by $3 billion annually and it cost the state $70,000 per year.
the source are. 70,000 jobs per year. -- i am sorry. the supreme court has consistently interpreted the language in article one to me in the establishment of the immigration laws in their manner of execution are committed solely to the government even though some on the other side want to commit the government's power, immigration is not and never has been an area where states are able to exercise independent authority. this makes sense. both legally and practically as a matter of sound public policy. immigration involves commerce and sensitive foreign relations. just as we would never allow 50 states to have their own trade
laws which should not have 50 states establishing their own immigration laws. even in states like arizona say they are only helping the federal government, this issue is much like federal tax law where the federal internal revenue service interprets and enforces the law as opposed to 50 state agencies going to houses to insure the properly filed their federal tax returns. here without legal status. in 2010, many of my democratic colleagues released a white paper outlining -- outlining our proposal for reform.
we passed a $600 million border security act that added 1500 troops on the border, deployed more aerial drums and increased border fencing and technology. it was hailed by my arizona colleagues that they were proud to co-sponsor. as a result, arizona's border is now patrolled by 5200 border patrol agents and 300 national guardsmen. a 31% increase from 2008 which has resulted in a 61% reduction and unlawful border crossings over the same period. yesterday a few hispanics study reported that immigration from mexico has dropped to net as 0 and comparing the number of
people entering to the number of people returning to mexico. some might wish to take credit for this but studies show this is a national trend based on increased federal enforcement at the southern border and decrease availability of jobs. this chart reveals immigration to the united states from mexico. it is national. because of what we have done on the border, the number has gone down from a high of 770,000 people in 2000 to a now 140,000 people in 2010. we have invited our republican colleagues to sit down with us and discuss how to best reform our broken immigration system and a matter both parties can support. to this date, our colleagues will not even sit down with us and discuss comprehensive
immigration reform legislation. finally, when controversial matters are proposed, they are blocked in the senate. consequently, there are taking matters into their own hands. i believe it is too damaging to our democracy to have 50 states do in 50 different things with regard to immigration policy. congress has indicated its intent to preempt states from creating their own enforcement regimes congress passed the
section of the immigration act. it allows state and local law enforcement to enter into partnerships with to conduct enforcement within their jurisdictions. congress made it clear it did not want the states like arizona taking immigration enforcement matters into their own hands and instead wanted state officials to act with guidance, training, and supervision of the federal government. congress wrote employment laws that were designed to punish employers rather than employees for violations of immigration law. arizona has decided to criminalize the people who seek to help their families. this plan may contradicts the intent in passing federal immigration statutes. i am therefore announcing that should the supreme court tuesday to ignore the plan and
unambiguous statements of intent and up hold sb-70, i will reintroduced a bill that says the diet want them to enforce their own schemes. state officials can only engage in the detection, apprehension, of unlawfully presented individuals of their doing so pursuant to an agreement with the federal government and are being trained by federal officials. we will no longer be able to say they are helping the federal government to enforce the law when there are really writing their own laws and knowingly deploying untrained officers with a mission of a resting everyone who might fit preconceived profile of an illegal immigrant. my legislation will also reemphasized that state and local governments are pre-empted
from enacting their own employment verification laws and penalties. i hope both sides will join me in the event it becomes necessary which a hope it won't because i do believe the supreme court will decide that it is not constitutional based on the evidence on one side. >> i join you in helping the supreme court finds unconstitutional. the states to not have a right
to pass their own laws preventing federal laws on immigration. it is wrong and counterproductive to criminalize people because of their status, their immigration status. we do not have the time or resources to prosecute and every undocumented immigrant. it will deter undocumented immigrants from being part of the community. do not take my word for it. asked the association of chiefs of police who oppose it. according to experts, this law encourages racial probe filing. last week held a hearing, the first time in 10 years on capitol hill. we heard testimony about the provision on this lot requiring police officers to check the
immigration status of they have reasonable suspicion that the person is an undocumented immigrant. it went further and to say in how you can gather the notion of reasonable suspicion. it went on to say by the way a person dresses or the command of their language. this is what they said. the statutory standard of reasonable presence in the added states will as a practical matter produce a focus some minorities and specifically latinos.
the dream act would allow a select group of immigrant students who came here as in 3 -- innocent children and give them a chance to earn their way to citizenship by attending college or -- we have had never the magic number we needed to pass it. the best way i said to my colleagues, is to meet the young people who would qualify for this legislation. center rubio of florida has said let's let these people get
right what their parents got wrong. these people call themselves dreamers. under the arizona law, these young people, under the arizona law, these young people would be targets for prosecution and incarceration. why? it is beyond reasonable suspicion. we want a chance to become american citizens. under the dream act, that would be future citizens. they would back our country a better place. i want you to meet six targets of this bill, the arizona immigration law. they have stepped up publicly to tell their stories of being brought to the nine states of by their parents, now begging their way to learn a chance for citizenship.
the first graduated from arizona state university with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering. she co-founded the arizona dream act coalition, an organization of more than 200 dream act students. last week she was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world. she is a target of the arizona immigration law. now meet the president of the cottonwood youth advisory committee in arizona. she graduated from high school in 29 with a 3.98 gpa. she is now a sophomore at the prestigious university in california. she will be a target of the arizona immigration law. now meets juan rios. he was a leader in the air force jr. rotc. in 2010 he garrard -- graduated
from arizona state university with a degree in aeronautical engineering. since graduation, he has put his life on hold. he cannot in list and our military are work in the aerospace industry. he is a target of the arizona immigration law. now meet jose. he graduated as delegatory of his high school. at arizona state university, he joined a speech and debate team where he ranked fifth in the nation. in 2008, he graduated with a major in business management from arizona state university. later this year, he will graduate from baylor university law school in waco, texas. he cannot be licensed to practice law in the united states because he has no country. jose is a target of the errors on immigration law. finally, angelica hernandez. in high school, she served in
the junior rotc and was president of the national honor society. last year, she graduated from arizona state university as the outstanding senior in the mechanical engineering department. angelica is a target of the arizona immigration law. unlike the arizona immigration law, the dream act as a practical solution to a serious problem which treats these young people and thousands of others in a humane and just way. sb-1070 would encourage racial profiling, going after the very people like you have just met. that is not consistent with our values as a nation and not consistent with our constitutional values. mr. chairman, thank you for this hearing. >> thank you, senator, for an excellent and heartfelt statement. we will turn to our panelists critical introduce each of them. their entire statements will be
read into the record they will each make a statement to russell per se is current president of an amnesty now, an organization for increased enforcement and border security. he was former president of the arizona state senate, a position he held until november 2011. he is most widely known as the author of the arizona law whose constitutionality is being decided by the supreme court and is the subject of this hearing today. he was originally elected to the arizona house of representatives in 2000 and the arizona senate in 2008. served as director of the arizona motor vehicle division and as a deputy for 23 years with the maricopa county sheriff's office. he served as u.s. senator for arizona for 18 years 1977 to 1995. are to that he served as chief
prosecutor and civil attorney for the county and school districts within the tucson border area. he currently serves as a partner can that law firm with offices in tucson, phoenix, and washington, d.c. the state center represented mr. 13 parity previously served in the arizona house of representatives from 2003-2009. he has served on numerous state and local boards and committees and is sponsor of the arizona state senate bill that would repeal sb 1070. a grass-roots organization comprised of 400 small, medium, and large businesses, committed to federal -- sensible federal immigration policy. his organization filed and a
meat is brief with the u.s. supreme court in opposition to as the -- file an amicus brief in opposition to sp 1070. you may proceed as you wish, sir. >> good morning. i am russell per se, the author of sb 1070, which is overwhelmingly supported by citizens across this nation. thank you for inviting me here before this honorable committee. it is an honor for me to appear. as you know, this is a problem across the nation and the effects will ripple throughout society. addressing this problem must begin by remembering that we are a nation of laws. we must encourage, have the courage to enforce with compassion without apology the laws protecting integrity of our borders and the rights of our citizens from those who break our laws. sb 1070 removes the political
handcuffs from law enforcement. all law enforcement agents have legal authority and moral obligation to uphold our laws, just like share of joe, who does the job he was hired to do. convicted felons, drug cartels, gang members, human traffickers, even terrorists. that pose the greatest threats to our nation in terms of political, economic, national security. during the debate as beaten senate, a rancher was murdered on the border. i have attended the funerals of citizens and law enforcement officers murdered by illegal aliens. i have a son, deputies there who was critically wounded in the line of duty in the gunbattle with illegal aliens. i was shot in the chest in the line of duty. i feel the cost of damage caused by the presence of illegal aliens in this country. in arizona, the annual cost of
the illegal immigration problem is the cost of $2 billion. those numbers do not reflect the cost of crimes committed for the jobs lost by residents. the terrorist attacks of september 11, 2001 _ for all americans in -- the link. four of the five leaders of the 9/11 attacks were in violation of our immigration laws and in contact with law enforcement and were not arrested. it was instrumental in the deaths of nearly 3000 people on that tragic day in america. and federal law, -- the obama administration does not sue the cities that adopt illegal policies. it chooses to sue arizona for enforcing the law protecting its citizens, protecting jobs were lawful residents, and protecting the taxpayers and citizens of
this republic in attempting to secure our borders. during my 11 years in arizona, i ordered numerous legislative initiatives designed to protect the state of arizona from the adverse effects of illegal immigration. most importantly to uphold the rule of law. it includes boat ride the at the polls, passed by 57% of the voters. in 2006, constitutional amendment denying bond to illegal aliens who commit serious crimes, cast by 78% of voters, 60% of hispanics. illuminance cannot receive punitive damages. 2007, protecting american jobs and honest employers by mandating the use of e-verify for every business in the state of arizona. each of these have become law
center by the various legal challenges. the last time i was in washington, the supreme court upheld the law against the obama administration for e-verify. the citizens of arizona -- according to been in law enforcement association that represents the rank and file peace officers, since as begin 70, phoenix has experienced a 30-year low of crime rate. 600 police vacancies, budget cuts, and all the studies did not bring about the falling crime rates. sb 1070 did. the deterrent factor of this legislation brought about was clearly mr. millen are unprecedented drop in crime. all of this without a single civil rights, racial profiling, or bias complaint. simply put, as the 1070 has clearly worked. arizona has acted within its authority. the supreme court has held that states can utilize their police
powers to enforce immigration laws. as the 1070 direct heirs of -- sp 1070 directs enforcement of federal immigration laws and impolitic -- imposes penalties for noncompliance. it is the simple measures that are before the supreme court. this common sense law is fully within the authority of arizona as a protect citizens from the effects of illegal immigration and uphold the rule of law and protect our citizens as the highest duty of any public official. thank you, and may god continue to bless this republic. >> mr. chairman, senator bourbon, i want to thank you very much for an opportunity -- senator durbin. not only to my home state of arizona but to our nation. constitutionality and prudence of federal immigration for some
lost by state and local government is indeed a complex issue. i am a native arizona resident. i came from neighborhoods and business a law practice with the multitude of hispanic and mexican friends, investors and what have you. we worked together, we share each other's experience. it reflects the rich history of the latino influence. during the last two years, we have unduly harmed over legal latino residents in this process. the solution of the problem coming into this country illegally. we have let rhetoric and political advantage of this sound judgment. mr. chairman, this hearing party is about 1070, and maybe mostly, seeing that the supreme court will address it tomorrow.
i believe it is ill founded, mean-spirited, divisive, and in addition to require state and local law enforcement to carry out immigration responsibility that lies with the federal government, clearly. prior to being elected to the the state senate, in 19706, as the chairman pointed out, i was the pima county attorney. i was appointed by the governor to head up the arizona drug control district because of the tremendous problem we had along our border. this creation of this district did not create laws that contradict federal responsibility. it was a cooperative effort put together by the legislature to address the problem in accordance with the cooperation of the federal agencies, and we did just that. i mention this because there is some similarity. laws need to be in cooperation and not hostage to each other. when i came to the senate, i was appointed to this judiciary
committee and the committee on appropriations. both has jurisdiction over border patrol, customs, general services. i used all the jurisdictions to focus on resources on the u.s.- south west border, along with my many colleagues at the time, including alan simpson and mark hatfield of oregon. we worked in a bipartisan effort. i participated as a member of the select committee and commission on immigration and refugee policy, along with my friend strom thurmond, alan simpson, and ted kennedy. the committee issued a report in 1981 that led to passage of a comprehensive immigration reform bill during president reagan's administration. let me remind everyone, president reagan supported that bill, setting up a date to grandfather those in this country who were here illegally with the pathway to citizenship if they did not have a criminal record.
i continue to work hard to see that this happens. many ask why our efforts did not work way back in 1981. there is an answer. we could not secure the borders, even though we passed comprehensive immigration reform. the former senator and i cheered the appropriations committee and we constantly added your marks that was not in the budget, and often it was taken out for other reasons. at that time, the ever congress and the public does was not there on this front. when i left the senate, the number of border patrols had increased from approximately 4000 in 1995, and now is well over 21,000, with over 5000 on the arizona border. those who said that the federal government has not done its job
in ensuring border security are wrong. i was in congress from 1977- 1995. i can tell you the federal government, in recent years, has made heroic efforts to secure our borders. it started under the previous the administration, a republican administration, and continues now with such programs as secure communities. we are called here today to debate the merits, the constitutionality of 1070. i believe it is unconstitutional, for many of the reasons the chairman pointed out, which will not reiterate. having worked with law enforcement officers much of my life, i know this law puts law enforcement in a tenable position. police officers are trained to profile behavior, not people. this law does the opposite. it profiles people. if you have brown skin in my state, you are going to be asked to prove your citizenship.
let me play a clip of an individual and it will tell you exactly what i am talking about. this was taken just a few days after the bill passed both houses, and right before the governor signed it. we did play a clip, please? [video clip] >> good evening, arizona. the controversial illegal immigration bill is not even law yet, but one valley couple says that did not matter. the man claims he was targeted for his race and forced to provide his birth certificate. >> the husband is a commercial truck driver. he was pulled over this morning at a wake still check stop. he was ordered to show document. he handed over his commercial vehicle driver's license and provided his social security number, but according to him, that apparently was not enough. [unintelligible]
it is that my house. >> that is when officers handcuffed him, placing him in a van, transporting him here to the immigration and customs in force and building. >> i cannot even imagine what he , like he was some type of criminal. >> his wife jackie said she was contacted and asked to retrieve his birth certificate. she asked the agent why he had been retained, and was told cross because he did not answer the questions correctly. he said that his mother is in mexico, that is where she lives. >> she left work and drove an hour back to america "where she was -- where she retrieved his and her documents, just in case, showing he was born in fresno, california.
within nine minutes of the time she walked up to the building, he was released. relieved to be out of that building, they both remain baffled at the encounter. >> i don't think it is correct that i should have to take my birth certificate with me all the time. i do not think that is correct. >> we have to bring these certificates with us and so forth. it is like it is a way of life to live with fear of being stopped. even if we are legal here, we still have to carry our documents around. >> mr. chairman, thank you for taking the extra time just to look at that. this may have been unintended consequences, but this is what has happened within my state. this is not just one example that jumps out at you. let me give you one more quick one. some statewide political leaders, county elected officials, said that as a direct result of undocumented people
coming into our state, horrific crimes have been called, such as the headings in that desert of arizona along our borders. there is no proof to this. these examples turned out to be totally false, including those made by our governor, who had to retract them about the be headings found in the desert. this demonstrates how political this issue has become. it has not been about creating law enforcement solutions to secure our borders from criminals or other deportations of those with criminal records. this law is a minor percentage of those who commit crimes here. i could go on and tell you a lot of different stories here because i talk to a lot of different people. pilot, let me ask who is the target of 1070? -- finally, let me ask. senator byrd been pointed out, if anyone tells you is only the drug and gun trafficking kremlin, they are mistaken.
sb 10 said the targets those with brown skin, and in my state, those are my neighbors, friends, and successful business associates. i have been in law enforcement and the united states senate asking when we can fix this law, and we fixed part of it. now, 1070 has really caused as a problem. as a legislator, i know that whenever you mix politics and law enforcement, you create a toxic environment. that is what has happened to my state of arizona. thank you, mr. chairman did i apologize for being longer than anticipated. >> thank you, senator. >> mr. chairman, i am a state senator from arizona representing district 13. it is my privilege to have the opportunity to give my perspective and experience regarding senate bill 1070.
mr. chairman and members, senate bill 107 has perpetuated a climate of fear within the state of arizona. without any doubt, senate bill 107 has done arizona and her people a great disservice and has done nothing to secure the border or resolve any of our immigration problems. arizona law has unfortunately subjected latino citizens to racial profiling and harassment. the following situation will illustrate how senate bill 1070 has negatively affected the lives of many latinos throughout the state of arizona. has created racial tension and distrust between latinos and law enforcement as well as latinos and non latino neighbors. will give you an example. the tragic death of juan morales, a united states citizen who was murdered in front of his home just 13 days after governor brewer signed senate bill 1070
into law. right after the bill was signed into law, racial slurs were yelled. if you do not go back to mexico, you are going to die. before long he pointed his rohrabacher at 1 and shot him in the face. -- pointed his revolver at juan and shot him in the face. latinos are less likely to report crimes to local law enforcement for fear of having themselves deported or even a loved one deported. many latino women face nightmare situations when they are victims of domestic violence because of senate bill 1070. many of these women are placed in a position where they cannot report their abuser in. getting deported. in some cases, these women are held hostage in their own homes. mr. chairman and members, no woman, regardless of immigration status, should ever be placed in
harm's way. senate bill 1070 has shifted the priority of law-enforcement to focus its attention away from the criminal investigations and squarely on local law enforcement immigration enforcement. most recently, the maricopa county sheriff's office has come under fire for their feller to investigate four hundred sexual assault cases. many of these cases involve children. maricopa county sheriff's office focus their attention on immigration enforcement. senate bill 1070 and laws like that have fostered and legitimize the vigilante movement responsible for violent and sometimes lethal attacks on latinos. here's another example. the case of a 9-year-old and her father who were killed by members of the minutemen defense
organization in arizona. they were murdered in their own home as they were being robbed. virginia was 9 years old when she was shot dead in her home. if senate bill 1070 has been successful in anything, and has been successful in breaking up the family by separating hard- working immigrant parents from their children and limiting the success of our latino students. these parents and children live in fear everyday, fear of being separated from each other. it is common practice for parents to teach their children of phone number of family member that they can trust in the event that the parents get snatched away in a raid in phoenix. mr. chairman and members, the state of arizona has dealt with a lot of anti-immigration type legislation, the most recent was a ballot initiative that
preceded senate bill 1070 requiring undocumented students to pay out of state tuition. the greenback has been exactly that, only a dream -- the dream act has been exactly that, only a dream. a source of pride and my legislative district, a school team that has been leading teams all over the world, including the massachusetts institute of technology. it was not for immigration status, the senate there -- the students would have unlimited promise. mr. chairman, this. created for a purpose. i would submit to you that senate bill 1070's true intention is to make second- class citizens of u.s. latinos. to discourage them from voting, from going to school, seeking employment, and realizing the american dream.
immigration enforcement is only secondary objective. other own admission, the authors intent to harass immigrants, to create a hostile and miserable environment so that the immigrants themselves would choose to sell off the port. the show no regard to the civil rights abuse of u.s. latinos citizens. despite its very nature defines their strategy as abusive. senate bill 1070 is either an immigration policy nor legal position but rather a campaign of harassment, intimidation, directed solely on the person's complexion. finally, the prime sponsor of senate bill 1070 will try to give you some rationale of the chaos of this legislation. however, i would submit to you that any effort to justify profiling, harassment, of anyone is un-american, illegal, an unconstitutional on its face.
mr. chairman and members, i would pray to see the wisdom of passing legislation pre-empting the state from addressing these immigration laws and put emphasis on passing comprehensive immigration reform, specifically the priority of passing the dream act for students not only in the state of arizona but across this great country. these are my comments, and i respectfully submit them. >> thank you, senator gallardo . >> >> thank you for inviting me to speak today. i am executive director of arizona employers for immigration reform. it was formed in 2007. we are not open borders, pro illegal businesses, but it -- addicted to cheap labor. we know there are serious problems on the border and
people lives are being affected. the issue needs to be addressed. businesses want legal and efficient access to the labor it needs when it needs it, from wherever it must come from, with little government interference or interaction as possible. most importantly, we want you in congress to solve the problem. my remarks will focus on whether laws like sb 1070 are good public policy based on the impact on business and the economy. what are the outcomes? do they secure the border, create jobs and reduce debt expenses? do they fulfill their proponents promises? it is a legitimate question, when program accountability is so important. what is wrong with telling state level of immigration laws to the same scrutiny? i've shown that this attrition through reinforcements in has been tried before at the city, calif, and state level, going back to 2006. nothing good has come from these
attempts, unless your only goal is to make brown people move. in 2007, the oklahoma bankers association -- it resulted in a $1.90 billion loss the migration policy institute found negligible savings on obama public services from the departure of the undocumented because they are an eligible for those benefits in the first place. in november 27, 71% of members have labor shortages and estimates the average monthly sales loss to the shortage of $21,000 per short -- restore. george foreman said they needed 11,000 workers to bring in that year's fruit crop. on the first a, 11 showed up. a week later, there were seven left. the losses that congress encountered in 2011 was an estimated $391 million. one analyst said we have turned
good workers and to criminals, and turned criminals and to bad workers, losing on both ends of the deal. exactly. alabama is rethinking h b 56. 25% of alabama construction workers have left the state, with be replacements. losses will exceed $8.50 million. state what losses and sell, critics sales-tax income will be 260 four million dollars. there is a chart in the back of my written testimony that highlights those losses. foreign businesses and executives refuse to work in arizona. the loss of 150,000 consumers from the arizona economy resulted in a decline of the gross state product of 9.6%.
a loss of 291,000 direct and indirect jobs. do these sound like the effects of a good law? we were told as begins heavy would bolster the economy and create jobs, at his st. -- were told sb 1070 would bolster the economy and create jobs. the answer is, you have bad outcomes because you had bad input. proponents in many cases made it all up. you heard testimony about how it supposedly cost arizona $2.60 billion to educate, medicate, incarcerate illegal aliens. that is not the whole story. economic studies show immigrants are benefit to arizona of just under $1 billion. you have heard 17% of arizona's prison for illegal aliens, when
in reality it is impossible to know. the part of corrections combines them into a category called it illegal aliens. we are told because of sb1070, crime in phoenix is that a 10- year low. there are no facts to back that up. mr. chairman, nearly every statistic used to justify sb1070 has serious daschle problems with it. newspaper fact tech researchers found that nine out of 10 immigration statements are not the whole truth. i would encourage you to take a look at the reports and data are provided to the committee and educate yourself on the real facts. i am not saying all the concerns are not legitimate and that there are no cost. no one questions the serious issue of drugs and smuggling on
the border. no one denies there is an immigration problem. we can agree on all that. but should we spend our time looking at solutions that might work, rather than on land that we know does not? it amazes me that with this history of failure, that sb 107 was the best idea that could come up with. maybe that's because no other solutions were allowed to be heard and discussed. there are some great ideas for solving this problem, but you do not get to hear them because we spend so much time arguing about sb 1070. we have invited all members of congress and we hope your staff will attend. this continued fixation out -- on s b 107 yes some kind of viable solution is crazy. it would do nothing to change the fact that it remains bad policy and bad law. congress, however, can and must do something about that and you should not waste any time getting started.
that solution must deal with the demand for labor as well as an at the same time as border security. nothing else will work. thank you for your time. >> let me thank all our panelists for their testimony. now we will begin with questions. i will direct some per se questions to you, mr. pearce. i want to thank you for coming, because we do not agree, that is obvious. but you have had the courage and integrity to come here and defend your views, and that is very much appreciated. i am interested in trying to understand the general context behind the arizona law. you were on fox news on july 29, 2010. he said your intent in writing as between 70 was "to take the handcuffs off law-enforcement. they will go home and sell support." do you still stand by that statement? >> yes, sir regret some have said that the arizona law is
necessary because the federal government has not secure the border. but to be clear, even if the border were completely secure, and the government could show that no new people are entering the country illegally, you would still want sb 1070 to remain in effect to ensure that all those who are already here with that status leave america or get apprehended or deported. is that correct? >> can i give better than just a guess on that? it is simply the rule of law -- better than just a yes on that. lolls without consequences are not lost at all. i have heard some misinformation here today that is more than disappointing. -- laws without consequences are all.osaws at they struck down the decision about fourth and 14th amendment
of those who are here illegally. the safeguards are not in the federal law. we prohibit racial profiling. we say you have to have illegitimate context. we say you have to have reasonable suspicion. the proper respect and decorum of our citizens that we come in contact with. you are always going to have exceptions to every law. but that is demeaning to our law enforcement community. you talk about the police chiefs not supporting sb 1070, those that are appointed bureaucrats fs.9 and out of 15 in sheriff'
every single organization that represents boots on the ground supported sb 1070 and worked with be to make sure we rick -- we created the kind of exceptions in doing their job when necessary. we did not regulate. that is an exclusive responsibility of the federal government, and i agree with you on that. we did not hear this about drug laws oregon loss or bank robbery or the other federal crimes that we enforce on a daily basis. states have always said if congress wanted to create -- they would have used their plenary powers. there has never been a pre- emption. it has always been a collaborative effort between local law enforcement and the feds to secure this nation.
the should always be our priority. it is the rule law, dignified, compassionate, respectful, and not apologetic for enforcing our laws and securing our borders. >> i appreciate that and give you the opportunity to present your full case, because obviously you are outnumbered your picnics that is usually the case, mr. chairman. >> i do want to ask the question again, if the border were completely secure, if the government could show we would all agree that no new people are crossing the border, however was, as, you would still want sb 1070 to remain in effect so that people who are already here without status would leave or be apprehended and deported. is that right? >> i am going to be difficult. >> give me your answer to that question. >> we have more people in this country than any other developed
nation. yes, the laws must be enforced. with that number you talked about, there ought to be deportation. the drug smugglers, the terrorists, you cannot just carved out that section when you do these things. >> i appreciate that, but your answer is yes. in trying to promote self deportation, do you make any distinction as if the person has been in america for 20 years, or have u.s. citizen children, work was brought here as a minor 3 nor fault of their own. the law does not make any distinction between those types of people, right crestar could the federal law does not make any distinction. that is a regulatory function, not a function of the state. >> do you believe that many national political leaders agree with your policy of self deportation, or do you think you have a minority view here even within your own party? >> i have a majority view.
sb 1070 is supported to to one coast to coast across this nation. 73% of arizonans supported it. it is still by far the majority in favor of it. 31 states have indicated their desire to pass 1070-like bills to get you believe it is the majority opinion of your party and of the country. >> it is the majority opinion of americans from coast to coast. >> i want to talk about racial profiling. critics say it is unconstitutional because it will lead to racial profiling of latinos, asians, and other groups. i want to try to break down the law step by step with you to understand your thought process better. you are the offer, no one knows this better than you. first, to be clear, as you said to several arizona news outlets
, "you know why sb 10 was written and know every section of the bill. there's nobody better to explain this law to the senate than you." is that an accurate quote? >> it is accurate. >> let me go to the stop and rest section whose language is behind me. you are familiar with that section, i presume. you wrote the law. i want to show you a blowup of the official training manual given to the arizona police officers on sb 1070. behind that he did behind me here on the screen of the factors in developing a reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal immigrant and needs to be checked. i am going to highlight a few. it says in the company of other unlawfully present aliens, if the vehicle is overcrowded or rides heavily.
says dress, and demeanor, for example, unusual or unexplained nervous is, erratic behavior, refusal to make eye contact. the one that bothers me is dress. what does an illegal immigrant dress like? those dresse listed in factors? i understand that work in cooperation with ice to develop the profile of those folks creek x explain to me as the author, do you think dress is appropriate? >> this is training material, not part of the bill. >> from the arizona police. i understand, but do you think dress is an appropriate measure of somebody? if it is not inappropriate, what does an illegal immigrant dress
like? >> almost read when you train a police officer, it is a combination of issues that tend to raise the level of suspicion, not anyone isolated instance. this is just a list of things that lead you to ask questions. and no questions are a dangerous thing. >> in your experience, you have lived in arizona your whole life. duke illegal immigrant stress any different than american citizens? -- dress any different? >> i want to tell you, this is a list of things to look for and they are trained by ice. this was ice training in terms of a compilation. if i am responding to a bank
robbery and i have a description kicked out by radio of a white male, average height, white t-shirt, dark pants, running down the street, i am responding and i see a white male in a white t-shirt and dark pants, i stop him. i have a pretty good reason to ask him a few questions. when i get there and find out he is not the guy, he gets released. you have to respond to reasonable suspicion to do your job, mr. chairman. this is just a list of things to look for pre >> first, i do not believe of ice sanctioned the use of the word dress. let me ask you this question. instead of going through these criteria and other criteria, why did you not just say, and again, the criteria are not yours, why
did you not just say that everyone who is stopped by police has to be checked for illegal immigration status? why do you require the police to form opinions about whether a person is an illegal immigrant first before requiring police to ask that person for proof of legal status? doesn't the way you wrote the law either require or certainly lead to racial profiling? >> just the opposite. under the u.s. and the arizona constitution, we have need for protection laws. i knew those kind of issues would be raised by the open border folks that are against any enforcement. we have been sued on everything. it does not seem like a matter what we do, we are attacked or simply enforcing the law and trying to protect american
citizens and jobs for americans. we knew those questions would be asked. we simply wrote the bill to free up those silly arguments and try to protect everybody's rights. as a civil libertarian, i am a believer that you have to have a reason to do stuff. i want a reason to do stuff. that is why that bill was written in the manner it was written. >> so let me ask you again, why would it have not done just what you say, rule of law, not discriminate. why would it not have been better to say to everyone stopped by the police should be stacked -- check for status. why come up with obviously a really problematic definition of suspicion, and you have seen in the regulations that it is problematic pierre >> i do not agree that it is problematic. if you have an arizona driver's license or a driver's license from a state that requires proof of citizenship, you are
automatically exempt from that. all we wanted to do is common sense. we teach our officers to have common response. we respond to reasonable suspicion. i do not want to hold up a family when i am asking all kinds of silly questions and there is no reason to ask those kind of questions. this is based on reasonableness. >> i guess many would disagree with that. and ask a question about minors. a police officer stops a minor, what documentation is a minor supposed to show the police officer to prove that he or she is a u.s. citizen? >> it is little different for minors. if you are an adult, you are required to carry it with you at all times.
again, reasonable this is the thing. if there is not a reason to ask, the officers are not going to ask. >> there is a car driving, an adult driving it, there are miners in the backseat. the law allows the children to be checked, right? >> at a certain age -- >> there is no age, all the children can be checked and should be checked under the law and its regulations. what are the children supposed to show? >> you are not required to have idea unless you are a driver. >> you think under this law, children to prevent themselves from being sent to a detention center or whatever would have to carry some kind of idea? >> mr. chairman, that is not accurate.
you are taking the extreme, and i understand. is just not accurate. >> does the law say anywhere that children do not have to be checked when they are stopped in a car in this situation? i understand the law says the opposite. >> this law makes exceptions to law enforcement to make reasonable decisions based on the circumstances at the time. i think it is demeaning to law enforcement to assume they do not know how to do their job in a respectful, proper way. >> i am just going to submit for the record, this does not list any exceptions at all. there are no exceptions here under -- i do not believe this is commensurate with federal law. let's go to a demeaning police.
anyn't your law permit citizen of arizona to sue any police department for any individual police officer who refuses to ask for immigration documents during a stop? >> let me correct you. it does not allow them to sue any individual in law enforcement officer on the use of discretion that we give them under this law and any other laws. >> just explain that right. >> law enforcement has qualified immunity under this bill. that phrase in our founding document, we the people. in arizona, we still believe in we the people. we gave we the people the ability to sue their government
if they have a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of our immigration laws as required under federal law. so yes, we do give citizens a right of -- >>, a chart here is this any person who is a legal resident of the state may bring a judicial action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or county or city or town or other political subdivision in this state that adopts or implements a policy that limits or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws. john smith could decide that officer jones has adopted a policy of not stopping the right people in his mind and a suit. and that would be an actionable case to see how the court would decide it. i just want to ask you this.
is there any other statute in arizona that you are aware of that allows citizens to sue police departments or police officers for not enforcing a particular law? >> i understand there are several. >> i have not come across any, so you can submit them into the record. i will state for the record, i have not seen any. why was this law singled out and allow this action? isn't that demeaning to police officers? just one other question, maybe the most important one. " that puts them to do things to protect themselves from lawsuits that they believe they should not do? >> law enforcement sat down with me to write that section, mr. chairman. it is interpreted as someone in an official capacity to set policy.
that is why the qualified immunity is to the officer on the street, where we give them the discretion to enforce this law. law enforcement and attorney sat down as we decided on that language. that was their language put in by them, comfortable language that they thought gave the officers the protection they need to have discretion and at the same time, language that was -- it is illegal to have a policy that limits or restrict the enforcement of this law. they are prevented from having a policy that pre-empts them. under federal law. that is what this is about, making sure they do their job. taking the handcuffs off them, and that is exactly what this is doing. we gave them qualified immunity and gave the citizens the right to hold government accountable. >> taking handcuffs off law
enforcement and then allowing citizens to sue law enforcement because an average citizen with no experience, and his ardent twins, says they are not enforcing the law. that it -- in his or her judgment. i don't think exists in any other arizona statute, and certainly not in the vast majority of law enforcement statutes. as someone who has been a pro- police person in my career, the last thing police like is to be sued by citizens supplement their own judgment. >> is can take this back and forth, but the truth is, they helped write it. that was language they were very comfortable with. they sat down with me and we sat with their attorneys and wrote that language to make them comfortable. this whole thing, when you talk about no other bill, i don't
know of any other law that brings me to washington d.c. and requires me to defend the rule of law. i have not been here to defend the tough buy law, the anti- smoking laws, i have not been called here to defend anything else. we knew we would be challenged by everybody in town or simply trying to enforce our laws and protect our citizens, and protect jobs for americans. >> thank you. i have one more area of questions but i don't see how it protect police or protection from being criticized to then allow citizens to sue the police because in their judgment they did not enforce it. >> mr. chairman, that peace is not been enjoined. we have had not won a lawsuit from citizens.
this runaway train your paint a picture of, the citizens are going to jump and -- jumped up and look forward to suing their government. has not happened. >> if it goes back into effect, you will see citizens doing. >> that is not true. it says to the slightest degree. there must be some compliance. citizens are not running to the courts to sue. >> i appreciate my colleague being patient here. there's another chart i want to put up behind me. do you know how many forms of identification exist today that can be shown to prove your lawful status in the united states by federal law? >> i do not know the exact number . >> i did not either, so don't feel bad about that.
but there are 53. the answer is that there are at least 53 documents that the department of homeland security says will prove lawful status. again, i am going to show you -- there are a lot of them. now i am going to show you your training manual, the arizona police training manual. it says the only documents are u.s. passport -- they are much more limited. u.s. military i.d. card, u.s. military dependent cards, u.s. birth certificate, u.s. and state government employee id cards and driver's license cards. so there are just eight documents. according to the law, if a legal project if a legal immigrants
shows any of these 45 other valid documents to police, according to your law, they have to be taken to an ice facility to have their immigration status determined by federal government official, or wait on the side of the road for a federal official to come before they can be released, is that correct? >> i just want to submit for the record a statute of the police training manual. it reasonable suspicion exists
and is practical, call ictv or an officer to determine the immigration status. you rae not -- are not helping federal law enforcement. if you are doing what you say you are doing, you would say the police officer if they sell any one of these documents should be able to say that is a good idea and go on your way. what arizona does is to restrict the federal law and substitute its own judgment. isn't that correct? >> that is not correct. they have a hot line. these are guidelines. as you notice, this is a 24/7 line.
>> why can they have some and not some others? isn't helping the federal ? quiteent ta 6 simply gives them guidelines that are acceptable. any other questions you call the officer again. i will repeat myself. it is a five minute conversation. it happens every day of the week. >> they have to be brought to detain its appearance on mss to look at it. >> that is at officer discretion. >> thanks. >> i have a few more questions
for the other witnesses. >> let me start if i might. it is an agency in chicago called los mujere latinos en ac tion. it is established in the hispanic neighborhood of chicago as a domestic violence shelter primarily for new immigrants and for the undocumented. if women and children were the victims of violence, they have a safe place to go. someone who would listen to them, counsel them, and refer them to law enforcement. perhaps a has been has been abusive to the mother.
i supported them. anyone wantsthink to see that happen. we talk about the impact of this law. it is on people living in arizona. could you tell me your opinion as to whether or not this law makes easier or harder for an undocumented mother to come forward to and to report to law enforcement domestic violence or the abuse of her children? >> yes. the bill has that even been fully enforced. there are still portions that have not been acted on. the portion dealing with local law enforcement forcing them to
do immigration law, and a quick comment, first lawsuit filed against the bill was a phoenix police officer. we're talking an officer on the street to came forward to file a lawsuit against the bill. the law that is placed between law enforcement and the latino community is there. it has not even gone into effect. you have a situation who are in the situation who are too fearful to go into law enforcement. we are already feeling the consequences.
there are reports after reports of situations who are in a relationship. they are for the most part held hostage by their own home. there are the seeing this barrier. did you have any law enforcement officer, and they will tell you the number way for them to solve a crime is working work closely with the community. they are reporting these kinds of crimes. they put this between law enforcement and the latino community.
they're too fearful to go to police to ask for help because the fear of one being deported. this is their big concern. >> there is a reasonable suspicion that they are on undocumented status. here is a mother, perhaps with a child as a victim of child abuse or worse, who is fearful to come to the law to protect yourself or her child because of this. >> this is exactly why the governor denied it. just denied just a the very bill.
this is a very polarizing since. there are victims of crime that is really hurting these victims. it is unfortunate particularly in the case of domestic violence for you have women who are just held hostage. did they are in terrifying situations. now have a bill that has not been fully enacted. it is already crating this huge thing. >> you publish something in may 24 if. it was entitled warning the nightmarish dream act was backed. it was on the letterhead. it was a link the peace. this was the title of it. you suggest that they talk about
those who would be eligible as on shouldn't and so forth. he went on to say they never showed the tens of thousands of criminal drug dealers and traffickers and gangsters who were caught in some back over the border each year only to return time and time again. help me stop the green act. have you read it? >> which version? >> it has changed. there has been one consistent theme throughout. people with a serious criminal record will never be eligible. there's never been a version of the bill that would allow anyone guilty of being criminal human trafficker or gangster be allowed into the united states. do you disagree with that? >> i do.
>> not all those our convictions. arizona has voted 75% to not allow it. >> i am asking you whether a person who has been convicted of drug dealing is eligible? >> they probably would not be eligible for the dream act. i do oppose the dream act. these are always difficult issues. all of us have a horse and have compassion. >> if you were speeding down the highway and had your infant in a car seat, you were pulled over,
should that hit the ticket, it to? >> i don't follow that analogy at all. >> it does not happen. >> it happens when an infant is brought to the united states and the parents still filed the papers. the infant did nothing wrong. and they now want a chance to reach legal status. you're saying because the parents did not file the papers not a child suffers? >> you need to blame those responsible and not us for having to do the laws. i have met with a bunch of them. i do not know how you carve this out. it is a blanket amnesty for those folks. these ought to be carefully
executed exceptions. >> the dream act is not a blanket amnesty. you have to earn your way into status. let me introduce you to another one and your neighbors. a light to get to know him a little bit. his name is oscar vasquez. he grew up in your home state. he spent his high school years in junior rotc. he entered a competition sponsored by nasa and was competing against tenants from mit. 2009, he graduated from eris arizona state university in engineering. he was one of the top three students in his class. let me tell you what happened after he graduated and realized it could not be licensed as an engineer. he is undocumented.
he has no legal status in this country. he went back to mexico. while he was in mexico, at the obama administration granted him to enter the united states. he could have been pulled over under your lot. -- your law without the waiver, he would have been barred from returning to the united states for 10 years and separated from his wife. the goodness is it provided a waiver. do you know if he did when it came back to the united states? he immediately enlisted in the united states army purity completed basic training and then he was sworn in as an american citizen appeared his serving our country and his
country in afghanistan. you have criticized the dream act. do consider him a foreign soldier? >> oscar is a good story to use. the exception was made. of those exceptions have been carefully thought out and not just a blanket amnesty for support. there is a cost to the american tax papepayer. i am proud that he would join the military. these are good things. >> i am not in favor of a blanket amnesty approach. across hundreds of millions of
dollars. the stories about your residence you must know many yourself, families after going through this, are now reaching a point for the students are stepping out and self i did find some people know who they are, what their dreams are, and what part they can play. can you put their stories in the context of your home state. >> i will make an attempt to do that. i have been here with the support of the dream act here. this is orderly, safe, and they go. it is creating a path away. we govern the three
universities. we have constantly have the problem of these people coming to their presidents and positioning of members of the board of regents to give them some kind of exemption. our legislators said they have to pay out a tuition if they're going to stay here. it has caused immense pain and suffering in the latino community. i know many of them. my distinguished colleague said this is not profiling. it is profiling. police officers tell you that it is profiling. they feel they have to. re areto sheriff's -- theare two sheriffs who are opposed.
infringes on federal law. they are not trained. they refer people over when there is a violation of the law. it is absolutely absurd to state here that this is not profile. this has become such a profile issue in arizona that two of our sheriffs, one is under litigation. people are being profiled. you can talk about that was not the intent. that is a fact. imagine two law-enforcement officers are under investigation, one for criminal and civil in the other is a
misuse of the office. i can tell you stories that will make your hair stand on end of public officials. he opposes this particular sheriff. the supervisors were indicted. indited them with the sheriff. the sheriff is under investigation. it has gotten so political if you talk out against some of the law enforcement people the get arrested in arizona. you are a judge any rule against them. he brought us criminal action. they just settled $1 million settlement by one of the supervisors that suit.
>> thank you. thank you for the extra time here. i want to echo his words. i have the highest respect for our law enforcement officials. they get up every morning and risk their lives are me, my family, community, my state, and my country. did they deserve our respect. we do not help them when we create laws and puts them in a position of calling people out because of their status been it is not make their job any easier. >> thank you. i have a few more questions to the other three witnesses. all of you are arizona citizens and residents. can you point out ways that
illegal immigrants dress differently than other people? what does this say about the arizona police when they say that is one of the things to look for? >> if i could comment as a native of arizona and former prosecutor, i am embarrassed for my state. i apologize for arizonas actions toward our latino community, it legal or illegal. this is not a way to treat people. so many of the religions and our state have outreach programs. do not ask immigration. it is a violation of domestic violence for any other kinds of crimes. the federal government has the responsibility. >> thank you.
>> thank you. the bill has been the worst piece of legislation ever passed in the state of arizona. if you look at sections 3b where reasonable suspicions exist for they are unlawfully present in the united states, the only way to determine is not buy clothing or the color of their skin. there is no way to enforce the senate a bill whip out using race as the determining factor if someone is here illegally. i would propose that if we were walking down the street in new as law enforcement to pick of the person who they suspect would be here undocumented, they're not going to be pointing at mr. perce, they will
be pointing at me why did the sponsor get recalled of the own legislative district tax this bill is that of the policy of the state of arizona. it it has given us a negative image. it will give us years to get out from underneath. >> legislation is before the supreme court tomorrow. we reach out to many officials. who's the only one that would come. if you believe and voted for the lot and are enforcing the law, why can you come and defend it? he was the only one he would come he had his opportunity to make his case. we've reached out far and wide with the official supported the
law. the clip you showed which is powerful and moving, i take it that happens frequently. >> i do not have axel information to give you a number. -- actual information to give you a number. >> who is making it seem like it was an exception. >> i am told the sheriff has conveyed that it happens. he feels his deputy should not have to be put in a position of being liable if they should not ask somebody. >> are you familiar with the lot? law?
was before thep law was passed. >> that have passed both houses. >> thank you. .his is the critical part it has not even been fully enacted. we're seeing the consequences over the last two years. we had one who was arrested and detained. he was brought in. he is a u.s. this is a. these are situations after situations. once this and you get an argument and violence occurs. these are the unintended consequences that comes from legislation when the state tries to fix what is a federal
problem. it forces law enforcement to enforce it. >> are you familiar with any other statute? where a private system can sue because the individual officer was the enforcing the law? >> not one. >> i'm not done the research. i served as a county attorney. i knew no law at the time. i talked to police officers all the time. perhaps there are some there may be one are to appear .
>> first of all, proposition 200 passed in 2004. >> what is that one? >> 200. it deals with a photo fraud and proof of citizenship, i be at the polls and no benefits for those in the country illegally. >> does that allow law- enforcement expressly to be sued? >> it is just the benefits. they got qualified immunity.
there are bears to the state of arizona. we have a national crisis. we can go through this. they said these little anecdotal things. all this are disappointed. illegal is a crime, not a race. it does not pick up any nationality. 90% of those who violate our immigration laws are hispanic. common sense. if i at 3:00 p.m. people, i do not know what color they are, and they're going to get stopped in question. -- and questions. ed.
we have a national crisis and we ignore it. i think americans are tired of the statements by politicians insisted dealing with the issue at hand. >> we made big progress. none of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle came here. weeny people to sit down. we have been on able to find negotiating partners. -- unable to find negotiating partners. the absence of people today not
only shows an unwillingness in washington and arizona to defend this laws or be associated with this law, but it shows absence of an ability that is broader. we get a letter rhetoric out there. there is a debate in terms of rhetoric sometimes very inflammatory. >> with that, i'm going to close this hearing and thank our witnesses. i just have to do a little housekeeping year. the record will remain open until tuesday may 1, 2012 for
further testimony. i would like to think individuals and groups for submitting testimony for the record. it will be added. that includes the conference of catholic bishops, american immigration council, and the american civil liberties union. i am asking unanimous consent that they be inserted to the record. i think the witnesses again. the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
drive-by approach, and you felt confident romney will? >> i think he is honest. it is a good thing we disagree. he is looking like an evangelical preacher down there. then he backed down. that is the difference. latinas that are americans support this overwhelmingly. in 2006, we have for ballot initiatives. they voted 60% on all four of those. hang on. hang on. why do demean the hispanic community?
why would you demean them? hang on. one question at a time. why would we think they're less of an american? folks who have fought for this country and others, they love this country as much as you are i appeared i find it demeaning that you think they're the good is because they are hispanic. that is not true. >> is it true that you are linked to people that are investing more prisons? >> that is not true. npr invented the story. i find it amazing -- i think they will come from a dream. there is no truth for that. zero.
she has already read the solicitor general. my guess she will refuse yourself. if not it will be applied for. >> i'm getting that far. i knew i would have the odds. and everyone would probably be against me, the democrats especially. they're pro-amnesty but call it reform. it covers the real intent. i'm willing to defend arizona whether i am one guy in the crowd or not. the majority of americans stand for the citizens. >> the fact is if you were set
up, if some of the colleagues set up, maybe we would have a balance hearing? >> i do not know the reasoning. if they thought it was going to would havefair, i appreciated a phone call. i am not one to run from what i believe is the right thing to do. i have a moral compass. >> the romney campaign is insisting that there were not saying that it was the model. had the feel about that? >> i'm not going to comment on something i have not read. >> they said he is not referring to it. have you feel about that? >> i'm not going to get into specifics.
i have for these advisers. i know romney is a compassionate man. i also think he understands the crisis in damage. for i admire that about him. >> where was that? >> it is at the convention in 2010. we went up in the corner. there are exceptions. i think it can be carved out. you cannot do these blanking policies or use taxpayer dollars to subsidize its. >> do you support the dream at targeted? that is targeted? >> anytime they want to do something, we think it is ok to
import illegal foreign labor. it is not a path to citizenship. >> would you support a car boat just for students? just for students? >> i will not support any blanket policy. >> bay would render this obsolete. >> we have already been through this. there is only four sections of the 10 that are in question.
read the bill. it is all merit. we sat down and went there every line. for we are very careful. we knew it would go to court. we wrote it to go to the supreme court. >> under federal law, it is a civil offense when they are not documented. under arizona law becomes a criminal offense. how many were marion federal law? -- how many were under federal law? >> it is not the same thing as civil. we need to make sure that is clear. injury under federal law is a crime. -- illegal entry under federal law is a crying. crime.
>> of listed was but in a manner to be divorced. it did not really change appeared they can -- does not really change. they can remove the illegal policies. it is an important section. i am very confident. it still be a chilling effect on those wanting to model its. it does not change the constitution. i have been enforcing immigration laws since i was a puppy in march 1970. it was never an issue. the states have never been pre- empted.
>> that will not be the decision. people seem not to get that right. they will bring the one thing the state police said about. if they deny this part, the make a prediction. i realize you are brilliant. if you lose, it would seem to me but they would be saying more. >> it did not pass the package did not have that majority.
the pre-emption issue is the same argument. the misinformation, tourism is up in arizona. with cannot retreat from this. i love my country. i love and respect those that come here. many of those who do not come here lately are not that people. some of the people. those laws must be honored. >> he had a statement thinking that this was political theater and not meant to be productive hearing. what do you say to that as >> i do not entirely disagree. we knew it was mostly politics. he can run this bill.
it was a popular bill supported across america. >> was it worth their while to come on here today? >> i came here. even though we are here, it is important that i come here and represent the state. >> even though they're only two senators up there, do you think it was productive? it to be shown in the media. >> what is your message to them faxed you want to see them leave the country th.
not apologizing for having sat down. i'm touched by parents who have kids to make trouble decisions. i cannot change that. the laws must be in force. it must be enforced. states have no ability to remain here. >> he said he was in paris on behalf of the state. patty compared to that? -- how does it compare to that
ta ? she said the only time share the pride of america when it is when -- she said the only time she was proud of america west has been. over 9000 americans a year are killed. i'm embarrassed as governments. jobs taken from americans, at the cost is immeasurable. that is what i embarrassed about. the ones to to not worry about the damage. >> what about the immigration from mexico is not at the net zero. what is happening in arizona is not happening in other states.
the problem have three times the national average. we have gone from 49th in the nation to #six and job recovery. arizona has done some things right. we have done a lot of things right. >> have they told you they're not going to come? >> i have no idea. it is not about me. it is about state rights. arizona has the right to protect the citizens and just for americans. it is arizonas obligation. >> are you disappointed that you
did not have senator kyl here or any other republican ta? >> i would have appreciate phone call. this is about stay right. arizona has certain rights. defending arizona is right. it is the law. arizona took a lead in the nation to saw the national crisis. what goes in arizona does not stay in arizona. >> are you disappointed he cannot show up with any other republican senator? >> i have no idea.
it to be unfair for me to assume. and not have that conversation. --acks are you aware of the >> are you aware of the economic problems because the lack of hard labor? >> social services 3 the four times out of any. these myths have to be set aside. >> most of the workers are undocumented. >> you have 26 year of unemployment. there is not a job they will not do.
one of the problems we have is that we are raising its. they do not want to work in the environment. >> what are you hoping the supreme court will take under consideration tax a lot of people are saying they will -- considerations that a lot of people are saying [unintelligible] >> that prohibits. i do not know how they can say is. they say they can do with no restrictions. they said it was fourth. it is unrestricted. in arizona, i took that into consideration.
i made it clear in the bill that you cannot use ratio produce a filing -- you can not use racial profiling. the federal government does not put it in their. >> are you confident that officers across the stage are following that direction? >> i am i know the good parts of these folks. when you make thousands you will find some that do not agree. these are good men and women trying to do ththeir job.
>> tomorrow morning, the senate judiciary committee meets to speak to janet napolitano. it begins at 9:30 a.m. eastern time. on friday, more coverage of the fight over arizonas immigration law. we will bring you an oral argument in the case of u.s. versus arizona. this is the only world she had ever known. to avert the only one a ski from camp 14. >> is going with his mom to a place near where we grew up in the camp to watch someone get shy. shooting public executions in the camp were held every few
weeks. they were a way of punishing people who violated camp rolls. there are terrorizing the 20,000 or 40,000 people that lived in the camp to obey the rules. >> sunday, society and civilization appeared at 8:00 -- sunday, society and civilization at 8:00. >> monday may 6, robert caro and this for the insulation into the years of lyndon johnson. >> this other right to state police to ask about the immigration status of the they expect to be in the country illegally. we examined the legal arguments
>> the arizona delegation law goes before the supreme court on wednesday. we want to talk about what the supreme court might decide. joining us is daniel gonzales, a reporter for the arizona republic. he wrote a story yesterday about this law. the headline is pushed forward and the impact on the state's economy. tell us a little bit about since this law was passed, what has happened in arizona? there's been a lot oft: changes. the undocumented population in arizona which have been the
highest of any state, it is estimated we have about 500,000. back in 2000. the border patrol was apprehending over 600,000 people. last year, that number fell all the way down to 123,000. it is a huge drop in traffic at the southern border. >> what are the reasons for that job decks guest: the economy.
there are a lot of jobs that people are coming in for especially construction and host telhotel hospitality. it has also become much more difficult across borders an increase in border patrol agents. a lot more monology -- technology and it is more dangerous and expensive. those are some of the reasons why some people are crossing. host: what has been your action in arizona from the business community and voters at large to senate bill 1070? guest: when the past two years ago, iimmigration was still a very hot topic in arizona. it was on a lot of people's
minds. we still have our people crossing the border. did they have an undocumented population just prior to the governor's signing the bill. they had a ranch with a kilt know the border. that is still unsolved. since then, things have cooled down. there's not been a single immigration bill passed in the state. that turned out to be the high point of immigration laws up until this. they're passing number of laws and that is the granddaddy of all the immigration laws. since then there have been bills propose but they have not moved forward. one of the main reasons has been very vocal. part of the reason that they
have been vocal is right after the bill. there're a lot of protests here and across the country. we also suffered because there were a number of national boycotts that really hurt the tourism and convention business which is a big part of the arizona economy. host: the arizona immigration law says what? guest: the most contentious part is that it would allow the -- direct to the police to question people who they suspected were in the country illegally during their routine duties about their status and arrest them. host: thank you for getting up very early in turning it on the phone. we appreciate it. let me turn to our two guests here to debate this arizona immigration law. let me give begin with the
executive director of the national immigration forum and dan stein at the federation for immigration reform. what do you like about the immigration law? guest: it is important right now for the american people to give clear guidance on what congress and the states have laid out in terms of their role in immigration. in particulararizona has set oue provisions that we feel, and i think arizona does, are entirely consistent with immigration laws passed by congress. part of the reason why we have seen some delay in other states acting is because they want to see what the supreme court is going to do here. arizona has made it clear it's not try to make its own immigration laws, but trying to assist the executive branch in what is required to do.
the executive branch is taking the position that congress has said they can do whatever they want as long as they are not enforcing the law. therefore, they do not want to enforce the law. therefore, they are not going to enforce the law. this is what they told the american people. arizona and other states are pressuring the obama administration to carry out the letter of immigration law that congress had passed. if you read the executive branch brief, they are trying to make the argument that congress has not required the executive branch -- it allows the executive branch to create classifications without review or any public inspection and turn around and rewrite the immigration law for its own reasons. at stake is the integrity of our entire system. the executive, the legislative, and states in insisting in that. host: why should the supreme court overturned the arizona immigration law? guest: dan is right.
this is about the integrity of our federal government and the integrity of our constitution. it is clear that it is up to congress to determine laws around naturalization. senate bill 1070 put into motion a state law that creates state crimes for, for example, a person who is not carrying their papers. therein lies our concern. when a local lot official in arizona stop somebody on the sidewalk because they look or sound like an immigrant and ask them for their papers, we are starting to violate our basic rights as americans. that is the important part about this law. at the end of the day, we have rights as americans to be innocent until proven guilty, to not be discriminated against,
to not be profiled. this impending decision by the supreme court could take us down a very scary path. host: what is at the heart of this issue? guest: at the heart of this issue is the frustration within the american public that congress has not acted to fix our immigration system. arizona and four other states have taken it into their own hands to pass immigration laws. clearly, they are unconstitutional. at the heart of the issue is that congress has failed. the administration has supported 1.2 million people in the last four years, more than any administration. it has rattled societies across the country. at heart of this issue is frustration. host: dan, what do you think is at the heart of it? guest: congressional intent. the supreme court is going to try to figure out whether congress intended for the federal government to preempt any state involved in assisting in immigration law enforcement. of course, we know that's not true.
we are hoping the supreme court will find that there's broad latitude for states cooperatively to assist the executive branch. the obama administration's brief creates an untenable situation saying the executive branch can ignore the congressional mandate and no state can tell them they have to enforce the immigration laws. american people want the immigration laws enforced. the obama administration does not. what they're really doing, the administration, is jeopardize in any chance of convincing the american people that if congress were to pass an amnesty, there would be real
enforcement down the line. host: let me show our viewers what the justices will be looking at when oral arguments begin wednesday. the ninth circuit court has blocked for parts of arizona's law. one of them, the requirement for police to verify immigration status of anyone stopped and suspected of being illegal. police can arrest any foreign citizens who may have committed an offense. those are the four parts of the arizona law the justices will be looking at. the ninth circuit court blocked those parts. arizona challenged that. that is why we are to the supreme court. i think there are about five other states with similar laws. alabama, georgia, indiana, south carolina, and utah. dan stein says they are holding off because they want to see what's the supreme court is going to do. guest: they've all seen arizona's economy struggle as a result of senate bill 1070. $140 million in lost convention and tourism revenue.
we saw story after story of farmers who have been there for generations -- immigrant workforce is part of their family. they do not know how they're going to survive. i think it's a goal of s.b. 1070 -- to put the family farmer out of business -- then they have succeeded. host: oral arguments arguments will air on friday night at 8:00 p.m. tom, a republican in arizona, you are first. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. the first thing that comes to mind -- on the one hand, we have an ultraconservative probably
taking marching orders from rush limbaugh. on the other side, if you get people are looking to make the country and opened funnel for anybody who wants to run in here. i am a 46-year of republican who always votes democratically. we in the middle have nobody representing us. we want to see the immigration laws enforce. if they cannot do it through the federal system, then they should be helped out by the state systems, period. host: ali noorani, what do you think? guest: there's a growing consensus in the middle about the need for immigration reform. i'm sure we will hear that the majority of americans support senate bill 1070.
if you ask the same group whether or not they want to require people to legalize status, requires them to learn english, requires them to pass a criminal background check, the majority of the group says yes, that's what we want. at the end of the day, the caller is correct. we need a middle that says we need rational, humane immigration reform that protect our borders, and serves each and every american and his or her family. guest: federation for american immigration reform. erie is a great place. arizona is not trying to make its own immigration law. arizona is not trying to set up borders deciding who can live in arizona or not based on immigration status.
they are simply trying to assist the federal government in carrying out the terms of the law as congress has laid it out. why this case is so important next week -- if the obama administration gets its way, they will turn it on its head, giving the executive branch unfettered authority to define which classes will be removed and which will not. there is as much involved in this case involving the role of the federal level, as well as the role of the states. if charles schumer says he is going to rewrite the law -- if congress acts -- if the obama administration says we can do what ever we want -- we can let in millions and millions of people who have no right to be in this country and ignore the stipulations of congress. that is what is at issue in this case. host: dan stein brings up chuck schumer's plans, which is the headline in "the washington post" this morning. "the legislation would have
little chance of passing, but he wants to bring it to the floor of the senate." they will be talking about the role of state immigration laws. the state senator who wrote the statute will appear, as well jan brewer. we will have coverage beginning on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. billy is an independent. good morning. caller: first of all, let me qualify it might call as a gay american who fought in vietnam as a combat medic. first of all, i would like to say that the american immigration policy does work. it just is not so the people who want to change it and come across our borders.
immigration policy, as i understand it, allows a few of these people into the country, a few of those people into the country, and a few of those people into the country -- all different walks of life. if you allow people who are here illegally to come across the borders at their will, you change the outlook of america. like we see so many mexicans coming across the border. you cannot go to los angeles and certain parts of the country and get a job if you do not speak spanish. host: billy, can i jump in? the headlines today, all the newspapers have this headline,
"mexican migration to the u.s. at a standstill." more people returning to mexico and then come into the united states since the 1930's. caller: the country kneeled down to pick up these people with the ronald reagan and saying that is the last time we will do it. that's like coming to the train station after the train left and arguing that there should be another train. host: ali noorani, go ahead. guest: first of all, we are not advocating for open borders. we are advocating for a rational immigration system that meets the needs of our economy and
workforce. currently, our immigration system does not do that. we have 5000 low skill immigration visas per year. when you talk to the agricultural sector from washington to florida to california to new york, it is clear that the agricultural sector is looking for labor. these are hard jobs. they are difficult jobs. we also need to make sure we are investing in the work force that was born in america. this is a kind of solution we need. s.b. 1070 does not meet those goals. when you look at the court briefs, when 44 former state ag's say it would require racial profiling and make our jobs harder -- these are statewide democrats and republican law enforcement experts. when they say s.b. 1070 makes their job harder, it's clear that it makes our job harder on the other side. host: dan stein? guest: there are doing that arizona is allowing -- including passing criminal statutes that are complementary to the federal immigration scheme. the supreme court will be taking a look at this law.
the political forces that drive illegal immigration are powerful. the forces of greed and exploitation. no economic apology for the system of immigration. the treaty of westphalia -- the spirit of the democratically established rule of law, not an allegiance to one person who can arbitrarily decide who has to obey the law and who does not. there's an entire class of people here illegally who broke our laws and now basically say they get to play by a different rule book that everybody else. naturally, s.b. 1070, arizona's bill, is enormously popular. it is very important for mitt
romney to be consistent in his for that state's need to be able to enact these laws. it is the obama administration's position that it is simply out of step with our system of federalism and the core principles, respect for the rule of law. host: let me add this tweet to the conversation. angela, a democratic caller, go ahead. caller: can you tell me why democrats and the black democrats in congress somehow think it's ok to let all these people into the country when they do not go to their communities and neighborhoods? the niemans' big english, always coming around speaking different languages -- they don't even speak english, and we
are supposed to continue to want to vote for democrats ignore -- that the black people in their community have rights. we're tired of people coming into our communities who do not even speak the language and they act all bold and everything else like they belong there. we have been there longer. we are losing our rights. democrats think we're supposed to like this because they are supposed to say that they stand up for everybody when they are ignoring their black constituents. what are we supposed to do about that? host: let me get daniel involved, a republican in ohio. good morning, daniel. caller: good morning. mr., noorani, your argument is facetious at best. you can smile all you want. in 2004, the united states supreme court ruled that the
police do not have to have a reason to stop you and ask to see your papers. on the web page of the immigration, i.c.e., it clearly states under federal law, you are required to carry your papers with you at all times and present them if asked for. that includes a naturalized citizen. i am member of the cherokee nation. i was here long before the mexicans, the aztecs, etc. if you take a look, they are descended from us, not the other way around. what is this big deal with us making these laws when they came back up from mexico and
stole our land and enslaved us? host: ali noorani? guest: you bring up a good point. the federal government has not acted. the federal government has failed to fix our immigration system. as a result, you have people waiting in line to learn english. you have incredible tension in the labor market. you have an incredible amount of confusion and chaos when local police are trying to enforce immigration law. let me put a clear example on the ground here. let's say dan and i live in arizona and we are mowing our lawn on a saturday morning. how are you this morning? a cop drives by in arizona. the cop sees dan mowing the lawn and sees me mowing the lawn. we are both wearing saturday morning gear. there is dan and and this other person. the other person may be here illegally. according to s.b. 1070, as soon
as the thought enters the police officer's mind, he must ask me for my immigration papers. i was born in the united states. i speak english. i own this house. if the cop does not ask that question, he will be fined $5,000. that's the kind of pressure local law enforcement is under. that cop would rather be going down the street and tried to solve a public safety crime, making sure our communities are safe. s.b. 1070 is such an incredible distraction for local law enforcement. basic rights as americans are put into question. guest: the officer has to have reasonable suspicion. the person getting arrested would be me for using the word "groovy" in 2012. the obama administration will
not enforce the law. >> suddenly arizona, what is it the american people are supposed to do to get immigration laws and forest? states cannot enact laws consistent on federal immigration policy, our determination, the right of american people to decide to have a fair labor market and not discrimination will be jeopardized for ever. i think everybody should listen to these oral arguments because
this is a fascinating example about how state sovereignty could create an earthquake type pitcher and our constitution of covenants to determine how we succeed as a nation. host: we will be airing those arguments c-span at 8:00 eastern time. caller: i a agree with what gov. brewer did. i worked in arizona for eight years. the problem is the federal government has dropped the ball on every thing. now they want to see if they can help that. it is their job to keep the borders safe. i watched the crime go up.
i watch my daughter graduate from high school last year. there had to be 30 kids there that it does speak english but were getting high school diplomas. they just have not done anything. whether arizona wins in court this week are not is a great stand to say, hey, we are doing this because you are not doing your job. we have to stay in el paso for the night, you are shaking in your boots because you do not know what is coming across the border. it is a zoo. it is pretty scary sometimes. arizona used to be number one in kidnapping. they had so many kids. they did it because the 1% flip- flop. these people made a bad for everybody else. you mentioned el paso.
el paso is one of the safest cities and its size. el paso is across the border from one of the most dangerous cities had to enter the world. this said, i will not discriminate against people who look like immigrants. the implementation will require me to discriminate against citizens and residents of my city. he has the safest city in the country. if he is saying it does not work for him, clearly he knows where he is doing. >> go ahead. caller: first is a comment. these immigrants to about one citizenship. they do not want to get in the back of the line. it would have applied for citizenship from their own country.
no. two, if you want to solve immigration, did the employers by a statute and use the word must. make everyone pay $100,000 fine for every illegal. guest: if you are putting your finger on this question, the administration policy position basically says we can suspend the rule of law strikes at the core as a cornerstone of citizenship with is a respect for the rule of law. that is part of the reason why this has become so important. apparently to garner what it believes is the latino vote is trying to pander to a ethnic group by saying we will not enforce the law that every american has the right to expect be enforced. we believe that is not true. we know the republicans have done very well with strong
immigration control positions. we know that gov. brewer is a popular politician. their leadership has been instrumental in helping bring this to national attention. ultimately the question of state action in a system of immigration law enforcement will be an issue for the american people over the next 30 years. it is true illegal immigration has slowed. our economy is in the tank. we are overburdened with tank and it will be increasing. the demographics say we are seeing a diminution in the american -- mexican labor force. there are countries that would like to move to the united states. the sooner we figure out what we need to do to enforce our immigration laws the better offer will be as a nation. the crux of what have you respond to gen.
go ahead. caller: this country has been invaded by people coming over here a legally. obama is doing that to get them too far without identification. when i got my driver's license i had to have my birth certificate, by marriage certificate, by social security, and my bill. i think it would not let you in their country. one teacher said he had to be sure in mexico -- he taught over there that he was well educated before he let a man. i tell you, obama is trying to change all of our laws. our constitution and everything. guest: the obama administration has deported 1.2 million people in its first term. as more people than ever before.
we as an organization think they have got too far. the fact is, the have been forced the law like nobody else. what is at risk is the establishment of 50 different immigration laws. if it is upheld by the court will have 50 different immigration laws passed across the country just like immigration -- arizona is making in a state crime. we will see a loss like that across the country. we do not have 54 policies. we have one. the constitution says we should have won immigration policy. the federal government had this opportunity to enforce the law. they have not done it.
in arizona they got sick and tired of it and they came up with their own lot. the government of the state is for people of that state. they got tired of dealing with the issue. we go to work and we go to harvest crops after worker before work. you know? these immigrants -- we do not have problems with the immigrants where i am at. in the southern part we do because they are getting out this way. >> will have to respond to that. he mentioned a state with the largest foreign population.
guest: this is not a mexico issue, it is a worldwide issue we are facing. terrorism has not passed immigration policy law. foreign policy analogy is not correct. have passed laws entirely consistent with our overarching scheme. the obama administration does not like the law because they're saying, nobody will go home. with the obama administration has told everybody that if you go here on the navy said and overstay, if you sit here and try and get into the country passed the border control and you are identified you will never be removed. half of the president's family would be deported if we are forcing immigration laws. they're not interested. while it is true the word
removing people the caught, the accelerated deportations which is being brought to a halt practically were carried over from the lasted years of the bus and administration. the obama administration is going after the last remaining vestige of secure communities. you identify criminal aliens for removal proceedings. they're dialing that back and eliminating the cooperative agreements. the obama administration is bob -- beholden. they oppose all immigration enforcement. >> thank you. a republican court blamed obama for the illegal immigration. i do not understand how the elephant is the symbol for the republicans because they have short memories. after we were a attack on 9/11 and competent president would have secured our open borders.
president obama has secured all nuclear >> here in florida, illegals have been taking low-wage jobs for years. this retirement community was built entirely by it illegal mexicans. the governor says he will not crackdown because it is too costly to enforce that law. -- let's give president obama some credit. he is doing everything right. >> we certainly applaud the
notion of people want to come here legally and do well. republicans have ben as a party beholden to cheap labor and business interests that routinely opposed efforts to crack down on employers. part of the reason it is hard to solve the immigration issue is because the business groups on the far left and right work together to oppose and undermine immigration law enforcement. neither party is virtuous on this broad question. the forces of greed, power, and money confused immigration policy apparatus at the federal level and that is why it is so hard to get things done. >> let's look at this from a
different perspective. spending is out of control. our immigration enforcement system, which is all we have right now, is costing us tens of billions of dollars. we are going to spend that much on a solution that has not worked at a federal level because we do not have a functioning immigration system, clearly we have to make taxpayers out of every undocumented immigrants and their employer to make sure revenue is coming in. we will have a functioning system that brings revenue in. our trust fund, medicare or social security, will depend on tax revenue. that is what immigration reform does. we do not have to spend tens of billions of dollars on chasing a landscaper.
we can make sure he and his employer are chasing -- paying taxes. >> larry, a republican in new york. >> hello. the i feel that states should have the right to enforce immigration laws. when i went to the dmv, i do show a licence and birth certificate, my social security card -- how are they getting these if they're here illegally? the middle-class people are paying for this. i feel that every state should have these rights. thank you. >> these laws, these federal laws that we have were given to the federal government by the state. they were given to them with the expectation that they would
enforce these laws. without enforcement, it is the same as not having it. it would revert back to the states, and they don't do it, it reverts back to the people. you have farmers were being killed by illegal immigrants, coming across the border and stealing stuff from the farms. something about it, the people will to it. you do not want this mess on your hands. >> clearly something needs to be done. there is legislation here that is pending to mandate and verify it an employer verification system. by the same token, the president obama administration needs to pay attention to drivers' licenses.
they're more than happy for states to provide tuition and drivers licenses to emigrants. what they're saying is they don't want immigration law enforcement. we need leadership from congress. we need to empower them so that if they break the immigration law, we can streamline the removal process. >> national polls show that a majority of americans, 55%, support arizona's efforts.
>> if you ask that same group whether they won a federal solution, a majority of the group says yes. congress has not fixed are dysfunctional system. >> what good is having the lauded the executive. and forced it. >> we would not have so many deportations. what the bill does this require a local police officer to learn a very complicated set of immigration laws. the reasonable suspicion according to their training is based on what a person looks like or wears.
>> we always hear that you cannot do that. there have been efforts to litigate states into the operating with the federal government. we all thought things would change, but they're back at it again. they say they like the idea of secure borders but they oppose all forms of immigration enforcement. and requires reasonable suspicion, to ask the federal government for verification of a person's status. your required to carry these documents on yourself. it would make it easy for the federal government to pick up an alien and remove them.
it is consistent with what the framers of the constitution intended. at the same time to corral the executive branch into submission, what to look at is a lot more legal immigration. >> at the end of the day we will defer to law enforcement officials. a huge number of officials in the law enforcement have stressed that to enforce the law would require them to discriminate against the people and their committees. it would make their jobs to ensure public safety harder. it is the wrong path. >> we have 10 minutes left in this discussion. the supreme court pick up
tomorrow. but oral arguments not likely until the end of june. jackie, a democratic collar and pat -- california. >> good morning everyone. my thoughts on this art that since the constitution mandates the federal government to immigration, mr. stein keeps telling us some falsehoods about the obama administration. they have deported over 1 million people in the three years that he has been president. way more than president bush ever even thought about supporting. we need to enforce the verify lost. i used to do this. you call of social security and they give you the number, and they tell you whether the number
is legitimate. if employers are finding, these people would not be working. >> we agree with you. we have been working hard to convince congress for 30 years that this is a system that needs to be in place. it is tough going because of the opposition of employer groups. i want to make it clear, i am not here to draw comparisons between this president and the last president. many things when into the deportation proceedings. the department of homelands a
jury has issued a memo called the martin memo that lays out the entire classifications of elegance who are no longer enforcement priorities. most people here illegally are no longer in any fear of getting removed. that is not what i would call immigration enforcement. >> smart government is about focusing your law enforcement resources. this prioritizes terrorists and drug smugglers, people here to actually harmed the public. someone who is just a landscaper is lower in priority.
not many of those people carried over from the bush administration. >> justice kennedy seems to be the key person in all this. these four measures will be enjoined. there will go through another set of processes. >> who are you watching tomorrow? >> it will be interesting to see the line of questions. i find justice roberts analysis to project the conservative opinion on this issue.
my kollek continues to make an economic issue of this. if the supreme court takes away the right of states to enforce immigration law, and the executive branch will not enforce the laws, but what recourse to the american people have left. this is belfort-4 decision. we are very optimistic. the provisions are well within the zone of what traditionally are being considered state sovereignty.
mr. stein is asking the american people and the immigrants to trust the american police across this country who have a history of abusing and maiming people of color. i would not trust any law enforcement against a person of color. >> let's say that. . >> is not reasonable suspicion. the requires something independent of the immigration question.
their only stop if they look to be under reasonable suspicion. this has all been very carefully crafted. there is misinformation about the arizona law. it has been incredibly crowded. there has been no example of racial profiling. in assisting and federal authorities, you will continue to have uncontrollable immigration. we have an independent in new hampshire. go ahead. >> we have a significant french canadian population, and they
did sheet rock and that kind of thing which is skilled labor. now it is all done by hispanics. that is a direct impact not enforcing the law. we are a nation of law, but it needs to be enforced. >> we will leave it there. >> we have to enforce our laws. but that is the purview of the federal government. wouldfeel like evierferify work if we forced everyone to pay their taxes. only could employers are the ones winning as it stands.
i was in phoenix last summer driving through downtown for a baseball game. a hispanic man and his daughter were going to a baseball game. they walked across the street and did not wait for the crosswalk. how much more american can you beat. that person broke a lot by jaywalking. a police officer would have to stop them and ask them for their papers. >> that is not a legally sufficient basis for the inquiry. >> you just said, an order for them to ask the question, the individual has to do something that breaks a law.
he may be in the country illegally, with a fraudulent driver's license or something. that is the way the law is intended to be. >> what the caller is articulating is the destruction of the american middle class. out of our laws or the will of the american people. we need to start getting political leaders who will enforce the laws of this country. >> we could go around and around. we have to leave it there. thank you for being part of the round table. >> we will discuss defense spending with adam smith of washington. michael mccaul joins us.
we'll take your questions about the future of the postal service. we will be joined by our first prize student cannot winner. --student cam winner. washington journal is live on c- span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> this stu yearsdent cam -- this year's student cam competition asked students what is important across the country. this winner selected article 5.
♪ >> think about the progress we have made in the last two centuries. we were a country for aristocrats. but now we are a tree beacon for democracy. our prevailing emphasis on equality among the people of america law drafting the constitution has truly come to life for everyone. the real success is not that we started as a great nation, but
though we installed a system for change that would enable us to become a great nation. progress is an american values. we have stumbled through masses but continued well upholding the constitution. wanted by the inclusion of the amendment process. >> if there had not been an article 5, there would not be a constitution. many of our leading citizens, including thomas tourism, would not have supported the constitution without it. >> i know also that laws and institutions must go hand-in- hand with progress and the human mind.
institutions must advance and keep pace with the times. let us provide for its revision at stated periods. there should be an opportunity for doing this every 19 or 20 years, and that should be provided in the constitution. he mentioned that was a generation. >> the genius of the framers was not explicitly written in the words of the constitution. no document they could write would solve later problems. no system could be perfect. the real genius of the framers was a device that collected intellects in that room. they built in a system for
change. it would enable evolution for the country they created. it was a very complicated process. >> if you consider the fact that the 21st amendment and did the 18th, we only have 25. we've only made changes 15 times. >> the first was the vote in congress. >> there is another alternative, that is to have a constitutional convention. in 34 states were to call for a convention, then they would each
send representatives to the convention. >> congress will make no law supporting a religion. through the amendment process, the bill of rights will ensure freedoms and liberties for all americans. >> when it is necessary, each generation has amended the constitution. for a guarantee of free speech. for giving women the right to vote. all of those things required a constitutional amendment. >> at the abandoned process facilitates the perfecting of the union. big knowledge as we are not likely to remain the same.
there is a way that citizens can redress. >> they have broadened our idea .f democracy carried i compared to the rest of american history, we do not live that nirvana, we live 10 degrees south of it. >> the living nature of the constitution and the influence of traditional presence are actively debated. >> a living constitution is an idea that is controversial. the idea that it was drafted in 1787 has to evolve. many would say, and i am amongst
them, the evolution of the federal government has gone beyond what the constitution intended. the correct way to change that would be to amend the constitution. the founders understood this. they knew that as time went on, they would discover pieces of the constitution that should have been written. >> the process has only just begun. as we move into the future, our goal five will continue to allow unimaginable milestones to be reached. and internally living constitution, one that will always hold the american values of freedom and equality up. with a firm foundation set by the framers, the progress of the constitution will propel the country on board into the next
200 years. >> continue the conversation about to this document t at art this book and twitter pitch. >> next on c-span, primary speeches by newt gingrich and mitt romney. president obama this the university of north carolina to speak about student loans. and the immigration law. >> rosie o'donnell was the president's first choice to be here this evening. she withdrew setting a nasty and brutal confirmation process. i was not even the second choice. dennis miller was the second choice. he got hung out by an illegal nanny technicality. isn't that what the confirmation
process is about in washington? weeding out the truly qualified to get to the truly available. >> i thought when you got into office he would put a switch into your basketball pickup game. first black president playing basketball. that's one step forward, two steps back. are you really any good it? you probably think you have good moves. nobody would give the president a hard foul with the president. at the annual white house correspondents' dinner, c-span will again offer live coverage of the event on saturday night. of the event on saturday night.